Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 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. Yes that is essentially the claim by her, but Todd was under the impression that the claim was that Sasquatch were just a group of humans that evolved from us without the hybridization by more primitive hominins. No they're not. The data is what was returned from the testing labs. How that data is interpreted is the question. 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. For the last time it's none of your concern and frankly your engagement with me about this is bordering on harassment and I strongly suggest you end it.
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Wow, go away for a day and posts pile up! Thank you all for your supportive comments and pluses. Just a few more comments and answers to new posts. Ridgerunner and Tyler H - You have to wonder whether MK believed no one would run their own BLAST searches on the sequences in her paper and discover they were a mess. Did she think we would just take her word for her conclusions? There has to be serious issues with the creation of her contigs. Ridgerunner's BLAST results showed that 90% of the sequence was not homologous to any known critter. In my opinion, that's just not possible if the sequences are from a real live animal. You should get partial homology to something in the database. The non-homologous sequence must be an artifact. But, if that's true, then how did they ever align their contigs to human chromosome 11 (an observation already made by Ridgerunner)? Thanks for sharing your results Ridgerunner. I had to laugh when the analysis by Tyler's geneticist friend showed homology to bear. MK said her sequences were not homologous to several mammals including bear. Thanks for sharing Tyler. Heck, I BLASTed a random page from one of her nuDNA contigs and found partial homology to cow! My daughter would say MK's sequences are "cra cra" (meaning "crazy crazy" for those as ancient and unhip as myself). Ridgerunner - I wondered about Supplemental Figure 8 too. Well, I think we're talking about the same figure - it's hard to know when the figures aren't labeled and there's no figure legends like a normal scientific paper (yeah, more sarcasm). It looks like a screen grab from the Illumina program. I guess its supposed to show the high Q30 scores for the sequencing data. As for the electron microscopy, your guess is as good as mine. I hope someone with expertise in that area will chime in. Bartlojay had some questions.... 1) It’s my understanding Dr. Ketchum is competent in the Sanger technology for DNA examination (older gen and dealing with small data sets) and has not demonstrated the ability to deal with larger datasets ala Next Gen sequencing?...Has she in fact ignored 99% of the data she claimed to generate? Well, the other 99% certainly are not in the paper However, if the other 99% are as big a mess as the 1% she published, I don't want to see it! 2) As you mentioned, the paper is void of much verifiable data and lacking detail, at least what’s been released and provided thus far, but isn’t a null hypothesis, which is supposed to be the core of every peer review written paper, absent here? As Mulder has pointed out, there are 2 types of scientific papers; those that test hypotheses and those that describe phenomena. This is a descriiptive paper and the lack of a hypothesis is not a problem for me. 3) I’ve been told by scientist friends reviewing the paper that reasonable estimates for her claimed amount of work, multiple repeats of every test, expensive labs etc..should not exceed $100K and that may include some “padding†if you will. Is this a reasonable estimate based on the work you see here Genes? Wow, that's a toughy. The actual reagents aren't that expensive. One would assume that the labs are already equipped with the required instruments - although core labs usually factor in some cost for maintenance contracts and depreciation. The biggest chunk of money goes to technician salaries. There may have been several on this project, but their overall time investment would not be huge. Give me a few days to calculate a price for doing the same studies in my lab/institution. However, my best guess, off-the-hip answer would be $200K MAXIMUM. Mulder - dear, dear Mulder, I get the feeling you at one time considered a career in the sciences (perhaps you are a scientist). Your knowledge, critical reasoning skills and logic are flawless. But, dude, you come back to the forum after a hiatus and accuse (my paraphrase) "supposed experts of flinging poo at a paper they haven't read." I don't know Theagenes or Ridgerunner, but they and others have posted comments that clearly show a background or current job experience in one of the sciences. Their comments are too technically savvy to have been written by "supposed experts." As for myself.... 1. I have had 2 BF-related encounters, years and miles apart... 2. I'm a confirmed believer... 3. I'm a working, publishing academic scientist (and I've shared my credentials with 2 members of this forum, and soon a 3rd member of this forum)... 4. I have actually read the paper - numerous times in fact... 5. I've offered my straightforward review of the paper - (yes, with occassional sarcasm) 6. I wanted MK to hit the ball out of the park (but it was a swing and miss). If you think I'm flinging poo, you need to read some of the comments I have received on my manuscripts and grant applications over the years. I can assure you that my comments and those of other scientists on this forum are "hugs and kisses" compared to what I've experienced. Genes
Guest Tyler H Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 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. It's tough choosing the right words to convey it here... you never want to blame the victims (IF that is what they turn out to be once the vetting is finished)... but I just think in general that people that want the title of “researcher†are not holding themselves to a high enough standard. And perhaps this community of support is not either. I think the title of "researcher" has to go beyond knowing info about bigfoot behaviour, and go beyond being savvy about the woods. We have to be competent, rational, objective and challenging when we become the custodians of people's trust, if and when we submit physical evidence. Our loyalty HAS to be to the evidence, not someone who tickles our ears, and makes big promises. I loved that I was kicked out of the inner circle on this one. Heck, LET me out when the claims don't hold water - keep me far away! We can't be afraid of standing up to grandiose claims, any more or less than we can't be afraid to stand up to pedestrian ones which dismiss this species. The statements that Melba was one of the only ones willing to proceed with evidence testing, just does NOT hold water. I had three labs with better credentials than hers, all willling to do testing here in Canada. The protracted efforts of this saga have turned up numerous other capable labs in the US that are willing to do this testing. I was told by some of the researchers involved "Yes, but ONLY MELBA can get the results we are looking for." So, options were there, but the option that played to their hopes and dreams, was chosen. That right there was my first, and likely biggest red flag. If we want the title of 'researcher' we should not be irrational, we should not base our efforts solely on heartfelt hopes. We have to have standards of accountability… much of the behaviour in this endeavour described "enthusiasts" more than it described "researchers", in my opinion. 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? Eeesh. sorry HODS - I've got so much to keep up on right now, that in this particular conversation, I'm basically just the messenger. I'll see if I can find out, or if anyone else can answer that - I'm trying to distance myself from the high level science part - I'm just not qualified to comment on it.
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 TH68 - and everyone (again thoughtful posts) - 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. I have a hunch that if I was to purchase a copy of the paper for $30.00 then I would have contributed more personal money to this project then Paulides. I could be wrong but I do not think so. In my heart I believe that it was Wally and Erickson that did all the heavy lifting and Paulides that is taking the credit. Go figure?
Guest Tyler H Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Mulder - dear, dear Mulder, I get the feeling you at one time considered a career in the sciences (perhaps you are a scientist). Your knowledge, critical reasoning skills and logic are flawless. Genes Unfortunately, I have encountered several instances of Mulder's reasoning being very flawed. He tends not to answer when cornered on it though. Comments like this one make him think he is infallible.
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 @ GenesRUs Being a believer/observer yourself, and having a hand in the business, did you ever try contacting MK before the release ? perhaps you could have added input or assisted in some manor.
Guest Suesquach Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Is it possible that BF DNA are the same as ours? No contamination of the samples just human genes? Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned that some of the genes that HSS share with chimps can and do function differently. We share 98% of the same DNA or something like that with chimps. But we are obviously much different than them. Theagenes and GenesRus would you kindly comment? Anyway, Dr. Ketchum's paper is just the beginning. Now mainstream science is getting involved and I believe we are finally moving in the direction to prove that BF is real. Thanks!
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I plussed that Hods, indeed, take your time, and wait and see what comes of it. There are obviously problems with the paper, and things have not been done to certain standards, and it could very well be hokum, however, it is far to soon to make such statements, and anyone doing so with "authority" obviously is making a snap judgement. I do not have high hopes at this point, but I will wait and see when people who's credentials I am sure of, and have no urge to participate in this kind of discussion educate me on their full examination of the the data. It will be interesting to compare Sykes results when the time comes as well. So far all I have gathered is disorganized, and lack of transparency in the process. It will be interesting to hear from Dr Ketchum why that is.
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) It's tough choosing the right words to convey it here... you never want to blame the victims (IF that is what they turn out to be once the vetting is finished)... but I just think in general that people that want the title of “researcher†are not holding themselves to a high enough standard. And perhaps this community of support is not either. I think the title of "researcher" has to go beyond knowing info about bigfoot behaviour, and go beyond being savvy about the woods. We have to be competent, rational, objective and challenging when we become the custodians of people's trust, if and when we submit physical evidence. Our loyalty HAS to be to the evidence, not someone who tickles our ears, and makes big promises. I loved that I was kicked out of the inner circle on this one. Heck, LET me out when the claims don't hold water - keep me far away! We can't be afraid of standing up to grandiose claims, any more or less than we can't be afraid to stand up to pedestrian ones which dismiss this species. The statements that Melba was one of the only ones willing to proceed with evidence testing, just does NOT hold water. I had three labs with better credentials than hers, all willling to do testing here in Canada. The protracted efforts of this saga have turned up numerous other capable labs in the US that are willing to do this testing. I was told by some of the researchers involved "Yes, but ONLY MELBA can get the results we are looking for." So, options were there, but the option that played to their hopes and dreams, was chosen. That right there was my first, and likely biggest red flag. If we want the title of 'researcher' we should not be irrational, we should not base our efforts solely on heartfelt hopes. We have to have standards of accountability… much of the behaviour in this endeavour described "enthusiasts" more than it described "researchers", in my opinion. I do agree, but who and how that is expressed is individual as the external forces (and covert ones in Bigfootery) are exceptional. And, in this case, the knowledge to really vet out of reach for most, and the access to her also out of reach. The cost to question publicly was exclusion, even in the protection group. So? The guys with the money and influence hold the cards, in BFdom especially b/c it is a network of friendships or groups without any governing body or professional society, any "appeals court" of any kind. It's a free for all. And money required to test a hair on hope alone. Many did vet her....and so many complained it was negative..from BBB grading to her lack of published works and so on. I support both you and Bart on this (I posted at Meldrum's too) so if you are feeling heat for stepping out and ignoring MK to be quiet it isn't from me. I too now consider myself a "researcher"...maybe "over achieving witness" is better...and have serious time and money in this pursuit and I hope with the right motives/actions. I focus on the "right thing to do" and have voiced my concerns about this as it unfolded. But, I also understand, and this from some experience now with Bigfootery, that for the most part these are just people and all under NDAs which would cost a few hundred to hire a lawyer to understand...and then if they decided to breach, face threat of lawsuit which even if dismissed at filing would cost thousands and of course all that internet hate, ....you are asking a lot from people already using their own money and time....do we really have to police the bad actors too at our own personal cost..? Powerful ones? the Anon revolution at BFE is both creepy and informative. (see note below on professional society) So, I still think the only people who could really influence as it played were as mentioned, and Paulides with the Lion's share perhaps....and awfully quiet these days. People who sent in a sample and received free testing really aren't stake holders...so maybe that's it...."stake holders" should take that responsibility..and usually big money means a stake (or reputations) .and one has to judge for themselves if they are that...some are j emotionally.... but a lot aren't p.s I saw your protocols on BFE...and I think we can all look at this and see some classic signs that accompany hoaxes/cons (not saying this is, but it does appear to have gone awry...maybe more like a re-model project where the cost keeps escalating, but you cant fire the guy with a roof unfinished, or bring in someone to clean up his errors...analogy there..somewhere).... excessive secrecy, domineering behaviors, isolation.....and .that BFers are somewhat immune to as there are some good justifications for site secrecy, and anonymity and the field a history of those worst behaviors, modeled by several name "researchers." But, we can look to Oxford to see how efficiently that can be handled.... Also Tyler, sometimes I have felt like a ethics and responsibility soap box...and I so like seeing you take that role! it is not one that people get excited about...lol and not my intention when I went into the forest....or now... things change...responsibility grows...the future still to unfold..there is hope...thanks for your efforts on this topic too. It may be moot after Oxford, but if not, it may be time to forma professional BF Society...we can't force people to join and follow those protocols, but it is needed for those who are serious..it could provide this type of direction for the many ... lol see my posts, and many others, years back (and every year a new serious researcher arrives) on this topic...so yeah I agree! Take it forward.... oh horrible edit vortex here...arrrg Edited February 17, 2013 by apehuman
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 For the last time it's none of your concern and frankly your engagement with me about this is bordering on harassment and I strongly suggest you end it. Don't be ridiculous. I'm asking you a question. If you choose not to answer it, that's up to you, but accusing me of harassment is absurd.
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) 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. And tell me Indie,,,,,, if the hair roots/bulbs and skin tags were consumed, how would this revelation now help put us a step ahead of knowing BF is out there even without this nugget salvaged from the paper? Back to the unknowns conundrum?, spare me please. I'd call it a huge Wally Hersom investment to be backtracking that tact again. Rhetorical question. Of you sample submitters, how many of you with putative sasquatch hair held back roots and bulbs for further study if requested? (of those of you reading this not under some form of gag order still)? Edited February 17, 2013 by bipedalist
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 I plussed that Hods, indeed, take your time, and wait and see what comes of it. There are obviously problems with the paper, and things have not been done to certain standards, and it could very well be hokum, however, it is far to soon to make such statements, and anyone doing so with "authority" obviously is making a snap judgement. I do not have high hopes at this point, but I will wait and see when people who's credentials I am sure of, and have no urge to participate in this kind of discussion educate me on their full examination of the the data. It will be interesting to compare Sykes results when the time comes as well. So far all I have gathered is disorganized, and lack of transparency in the process. It will be interesting to hear from Dr Ketchum why that is. Again who, apart from those who have already commented and who include people whose credentials you can certainly be sure of, are you waiting for?
Guest mitchw Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) I hope George Knapp is here taking notes for tonight. Edited February 17, 2013 by mitchw
indiefoot Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 And tell me Indie,,,,,, if the hair roots/bulbs and skin tags were consumed, how would this revelation now help put us a step ahead of knowing BF is out there even without this nugget salvaged from the paper? Back to the unknowns conundrum?, spare me please. Have they succeded in demonstrating that something is out there.... behind the reports?
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) I think we should all send samples and money to GenesRUs. Theagenes and ridgerunner and let THEM do the next rounds of testing and see what THEY come up with Moving on. Edited February 17, 2013 by madison5716
Recommended Posts