Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) ^^^ My comment had nothing to do with the report, I was commenting on the article and all the garbage in it. And no I do not dismiss knowledgeable people on the subject because they say something I might not agree with. But when the author quotes Disotell when he clearly didn't know what hell he was talking bout I really have to wonder how much he thought this whole thing through. So tell me, when did Melba ever state Bigfoot branched off from humans 15,000 years ago and became a separate species..hmmm?? So that leaves two possibilities for the author, either he doesn't understand this himself or he know better and wanted to fling as much poo as possible at the paper. In either case why should we trust his opinion on anything in this article? Edited February 17, 2013 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I do not think its a question of support, its a question of will the data pan out? Obviously there are some structural problems with the report, and its presentation seems to be disorganized, however, there is a long way to go before the data can be called hokum. I have yet to hear a qualified person call it hokum. We may hear that eventually, but it takes time to properly look at the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Monograph? Or, previously peer-reviewed and passed paper from Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Zoology then presented in the self-purchased storefront (deNovo) of a new online open source journal requiring purchase? George on C2C could ask her which specific journals rejected her outright, requested revisions and/or she removed her paper from due to other considerations.... also? Of course we could just wait for the new peer review in process, but why is this process not transparent? Edited February 17, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) ^^^ My comment had nothing to do with the report, I was commenting on the article and all the garbage in it. And no I do not dismiss knowledgeable people on the subject because they say something I might not agree with. But when the author quotes Disotell when he clearly didn't know what hell he was talking bout I really have to wonder how much he thought this whole thing through. So tell me, when did Melba ever state Bigfoot branched off from humans 15,000 years ago and became a separate species..hmmm?? So that leaves two possibilities for the author, either he doesn't understand this himself or he know better and wanted to fling as much poo as possible at the paper. In either case why should we trust his opinion on anything in this article? That;s not an answer. The question I asked is "what will satisfy you that this report is hokum". Given that nobody is supporting it at the moment, at what point will you say ok, enough is enough, forget about Ketchum and move on. I do not think its a question of support, its a question of will the data pan out? Obviously there are some structural problems with the report, and its presentation seems to be disorganized, however, there is a long way to go before the data can be called hokum. I have yet to hear a qualified person call it hokum. We may hear that eventually, but it takes time to properly look at the data. The data is not hokum. The data is what it is. The conclusions are hokum. Monograph? Or, previously peer-reviewed and passed paper from Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Zoology then presented in the self-purchased storefront (deNovo) of a new online open source journal requiring purchase? Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Zoology which nobody apart from her has ever heard of. Edited February 17, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Disotel redux. That quote of his a bit out of date, no? Lol. I love when NYU students call me to ask for a contribution and I tell them he has to go first! But seriously, all the "main stream" critics have to adopt the sarcastic mantle that drapes all news reports concerning this topic. I dare say that if a real body was uncovered on "Leno" it still wouldn't change a thing. This will be a process that will take some time. But in the end, Dr Ketchum will be recognized as the first to discover this species. DNA can't be faked. The claim of contamination does NOT explain the novel DNA found. Contamination is the equivalent of man in a suit. However just saying it with no proof of same doesn't make it true. If contaminated, don't just say it, prove it. The samples are there as is the analysis. Give us the I. D . of the contaminator. I'm waiting. . . Ericsson/Nat. Geo videos will be released before that ever happens . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) ^^^^^^ You might ask Dr K....if she was following anything that resembled scientific protocol she would have gotten samples from all submitters. See how this works it's on her to prove everything until then its vapor ware Edited February 17, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Disotel redux. That quote of his a bit out of date, no? Lol. I love when NYU students call me to ask for a contribution and I tell them he has to go first! But seriously, all the "main stream" critics have to adopt the sarcastic mantle that drapes all news reports concerning this topic. I dare say that if a real body was uncovered on "Leno" it still wouldn't change a thing. This will be a process that will take some time. But in the end, Dr Ketchum will be recognized as the first to discover this species. DNA can't be faked. The claim of contamination does NOT explain the novel DNA found. Contamination is the equivalent of man in a suit. However just saying it with no proof of same doesn't make it true. If contaminated, don't just say it, prove it. The samples are there as is the analysis. Give us the I. D . of the contaminator. I'm waiting. . . Ericsson/Nat. Geo videos will be released before that ever happens . No, SHE has to release to GenBank before people can do this. How many times does this need saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 The data is not hokum. Three qualified people in this thread are saying otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) That;s not an answer. The question I asked is "what will satisfy you that this report is hokum". Given that nobody is supporting it at the moment, at what point will you say ok, enough is enough, forget about Ketchum and move on. First of all, please don't come in here and demand these answers from me but I will answer you anyway. I will forget ketchum and move on when I am convinced that there is no good science in this paper, and I will not even consider that until Melba gets atleast one round of rebuttals on everything that has been brought up. If by then everything has not been thoroughly explained away by whoever then I will wait for more answers. I will make up my mind on my own time and for my own reasons. I'm not going to have my mind made up by a bunch of people because it's now the in thing to do. Edited February 18, 2013 by AaronD to remove trolling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Tyler, I wanted to highlight this snippet from your earlier post, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, because this is very significant. I just want to clarify that you had a specialist run the sequence for the Justin's sample that Ketchum provided as a supplement to her paper with BLAST. And when that was done, portions of that sequence were a match for bear. Is this correct? Hi Theagenes - that is my understanding, yes. I am in the midst of making sure that is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) TH68 - and everyone (again thoughtful posts) - yes, it will take time, true. So why C2C now? This is an example of promoting to a subculture audience rather than the hard work of scientific acceptance, which in this case means waiting for her skeptic sent scientists to review and reveal. Tyler H, very interesting critique - Theagenes once you get an answer we do expect some commentary. you received many plusses, as did GeneRus, for your posts...so BFers aren't that uncharitable and are capable of hearing even bad news. Bipedal, I agree it's time for answers and not victim laments. On the responsibility of submitters to vet? LOL, I kind of have to go with DR on that until the Sierra Kills controversy. Up to that time it was a gift to the BF community, and one long sought. After the Sierra Kills was revealed, that was the time to begin questioning, instead it seemed the whole BF world got excited and forgot two individuals were shot, that a scientist seemingly confirmed it and yet no authorities were brought in the loop. Odd. Even Dyer claims to have immediately called authorities (well, or minnow did..) No submitters but David Paulides, Adrian Erickson, or Wally Hersom (OP?) had the money to influence this study, or the power to pan it. If any submitter of lessor means had tried to complain or question that person would have been kicked out of the study...huh, Stubstad comes to mind..and a few others. And, to me it looked like EP did try to push back, and still is, by retaining their video and providing only a depressing clip. Wally is a bigger question and if true, a $25K/month retainer is more than enough to cover her business expenses to stay running with full attention to the study...although it appears there was no accountability for what that full attention was? Wally is very insulated from all of us...and again, I have never successfully bossed around a rich person...lol and he apparently paid Moneymaker big bucks for a long time... (and when MM called her out BFers said he was jealous). So that leaves Paulides as that vetting process ..and it appeared he was in a complete war with everyone on this, .....from Meldrum to MMoneymaker the war of internet words waged (it was a heady summer...remember?)...and the humanness of Bfs was at issue, two camps.....who would have believed any "ape" guy that called this out? And what motivation for Paulides to vet or blow the whistle - as he was spinning this as his study (everyone was worried about first then too...first to hear woodknocks, etc..lol) It seems as things progressed she withdrew more and surrounded herself with supporters rather than those who question...and it seemed anytime someone had something negative to say...the FB friendships shifted, a PR spokesperson fired, and so on.... .guys..Melba made it tough to vet her, especially by a contributor, without losing their membership to that scene.and outsiders were shunned, NDAs used as cover, etc..it is still going on....and if one really spoke out..well ask some how that worked out... (a few probably feeling vindicated and MM signing up for season 5)... So, the signs were there, if not before, about 24 months ago....and those of us on-line trying to balance our outsider hope, with real concerns, and no voice, has resulted in an interesting internet read! 700 pages just here...BFE is quite a record too... So who to blame? those darn Bigfoots....it is their fault, if they were just a bit more extroverted... Come to think of it...what is Paulides saying... he has been exceedingly quiet on this for almost a year (beyond platitudes).. I also noticed a half dozen samples listed as NABS....so he built his NABS (it seemed on website) under this study...guys like R.H. joined...and S.C. even H.F. is on that list with a hair (wonder when he got that?) seem to be a part of NABS now. So, maybe he will call in tonight and explain his out of this world DNA.. I do hope whoever calls in brings more to the story with their questions... I think she will cancel, and in this case I would say... I understand. To Indie below... it only seems we have forgotten past DNA failures/clues in the wake of this study release and reaction...those don't do much to support the study...except,..the truth is BFs are real and some samples sent to MK were also...perhaps something will be of worth and remembered of her contribution. Edited February 17, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Three qualified people in this thread are saying otherwise. No they're not. The data is what was returned from the testing labs. How that data is interpreted is the question. First of all, it's none of your business to come in here and demand these answers from me but I will answer you anyway. I will forget ketchum and move on when I am convinced that there is no good science in this paper, and I will not even consider that until Melba gets atleast one round of rebuttals on everything that has been brought up. If by then everything has not been thoroughly explained away by whoever then I will wait for more answers. I will make up my mind on my own time and for my own reasons. I'm not going to have my mind made up by a bunch of chest beating wanna be alpha males(no members described by those terms) because it's now the in thing to do. When will you be convinced that there is "no good science" in the paper? Most people, whether pro-Bigfoot or skeptical, already are. Whose word will it take? There's nobody standing up for it at all. Edited February 17, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 ^^^ My comment had nothing to do with the report, I was commenting on the article and all the garbage in it. And no I do not dismiss knowledgeable people on the subject because they say something I might not agree with. But when the author quotes Disotell when he clearly didn't know what hell he was talking bout I really have to wonder how much he thought this whole thing through. So tell me, when did Melba ever state Bigfoot branched off from humans 15,000 years ago and became a separate species..hmmm?? So that leaves two possibilities for the author, either he doesn't understand this himself or he know better and wanted to fling as much poo as possible at the paper. In either case why should we trust his opinion on anything in this article? re: 15000 yrs ago - I heard at least one radio interview where she said that - the one in Calgary I believe. You can find this info in many places. It's a fairly well-known claim she has made - that the hybridization events began ocurring around then. Disotel redux. That quote of his a bit out of date, no? Lol. I love when NYU students call me to ask for a contribution and I tell them he has to go first! But seriously, all the "main stream" critics have to adopt the sarcastic mantle that drapes all news reports concerning this topic. I dare say that if a real body was uncovered on "Leno" it still wouldn't change a thing. This will be a process that will take some time. But in the end, Dr Ketchum will be recognized as the first to discover this species. DNA can't be faked. The claim of contamination does NOT explain the novel DNA found. Contamination is the equivalent of man in a suit. However just saying it with no proof of same doesn't make it true. If contaminated, don't just say it, prove it. The samples are there as is the analysis. Give us the I. D . of the contaminator. I'm waiting. . . Ericsson/Nat. Geo videos will be released before that ever happens . "The claim of contamination does NOT explain the novel DNA found" ... what novel DNA? that is the whole question - IS there novel DNA? efforts to date by objective third parties seem to show that it is an amalgam of DNA's from different contributors in the sample... bear to human to bacteria. THus far, it seems the ID's of the contaminators are the shooter and/or handlers and bear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Hi Theagenes - that is my understanding, yes. I am in the midst of making sure that is accurate. Hey Tyler, I admittedly do not know a whole lot about DNA but I have a quick question or two. I saw your post about running #26 or parts thereof through BLAST. What I am wondering is did you run #26 up against #31 and #140? Also did you run the others through BLAST as a sort of 'control' so to speak because of the lack the specific controversy with #26? Edited February 17, 2013 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 IMO, what keeps getting lost in the hoopla is the fact that a number of hairs were tested by several forensic labs and determined to be from something other than a human or a known animal species, yet tested as human or near human through various DNA examinations. Saying they were contaminated by human DNA, or saying they were from humans in the first place ignores the consistant morphology to the contrary. The study seems more inteseting when you focus on the resulting data and ignore the Hss involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts