Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 There is no gag order. I have a hair sample in with Sykes now, and we still have a little hair left that I think David Ellis Sent to Dr Meldrum to give to Sykes. Also a couple months back Jeff asked for some hair from the Sierra sample, that I will be sending him if he still wants it. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 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. New thread: The BFF Report. T-minus 5 years? Hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Hi Theagenes - that is my understanding, yes. I am in the midst of making sure that is accurate. I have now confirmed this Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I hope George Knapp is here taking notes for tonight. I doubt that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2013 Yah, C2C is more like a schmooze-fest when it comes to hard-ball questions..... they have to nurture their guests for repeat visits. And the occasional, Hollow-earther that will call in for entertainment to relieve the guests of all the pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 New thread: The BFF Report. T-minus 5 years? Hope not. Hahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I am becoming more and more confused. Without arguing about the study, just in general. I am way too ignorant to have an opinion on what you guys are debating gene wise. My confusion is this: If the field of genetics, and DNA is understood, and accepted to be understood enough to routinely send people to the electric chair, based on those a,t,c,and g's, and those have to be really really specific,and the confidence in the patterns of those a,t,c's and g' have to be enough to convince the legal system of an individuals absolute presence, involvement, or whatever the tissue evidence proclaimed, and many times this tissue is recovered in degraded, contaminated and less than ideal situations. Why would there be such issues as have been debated here using in some cases ideal samples collected in good conditions, freshly collected and properly acquired? And said samples being tested not for the virtual absolute identity of a specific individual but just to determined if it is the same species? How can it be harder to differentiate a sample in a much broader manner, species, than what i would think to be a very very narrow manner, -and individual of a species? Why would samples deteriorate faster when using them for general species identification? I realize some of these questions are influenced by the so called CSI effect, but really, people are convicted on older, less cared for, and size wise much smaller samples than most of the ones I have heard discussed here. I know its not as easy as it sounds, but there are really people walking free and people on death row because scientist convinced a jury that a certain homo sapien sapien out of six billion homo sapien sapiens committed or didnt commit an act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) ^PB - The defendant's DNA is known and the sample can be compared to it specifically and specific protocols are in place for those analyses that courts will accept. She is trying to show BFs exist and doesn't have a known sample of Bigfoot to compare her samples with. And, in this case only three of those 100 some samples offer more useful and different data - indicating something other than Homo sapiens (the mDNA was human). I can't speak to all the details so many have above, it's why I am here, reading! But, it looks like three partial genomes described in this paper will not be enough to prove her case in her favor ...but, some hope remains that if the data is uploaded to GenBank there might be validation, or at least a more complete picture of those three genomes...or alternatively some traditional review by a well respected peer would enlighten us, in a format almost all could accept if they don't accept comments here...and that is yet to come That's my lay summary today, please jump in anyone! Edited February 17, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 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. I have read the NDA - it does NOT take a lawyer to understand it. It's patently onerous and manipulative at even just a first blush. I don't think any reasearcher should EVER feel so desperate that they feel they have to sign something like this. To continue your analogy - if someone comes and says they'll give you a new roof for half the price of anyone else, and they drive a vehicle that you have seen in robbery footage that you have seen on TV, but you then agree to pay them all up front, you HAVE to take some of the blame for your decisions, when that guy takes off with your money, or does a shoddy job. (I actually did something very similar to this once, for stucco on my garage - I learned, I accepted part of the blame - but I never claimed to be a leader in such things - If I claim to be a BF "researcher" I think I should be more competent.) Justin had all the same documents and situations thrown at him, and was encouraged to sign them by competent people involved, and then strongly, viscerally disuaded from involving any other sources that could vet the claims being made. I know I'm on a soapbox... I don't like it... and I appreciate your support. Each time I post these thoughts, I get a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach. I'm not wanting to tear anyone apart, and I feel for the good people that may have been duped (again, only the newest investigative efforts on the supposedly raw data will settle this) but we can't defend someone tooth and nail one day, viscerally oppose efforts to substantiate their work, and then claim 'hey, I was just a submitter.' If we are going to shepherd witnesses and their evidence, we better do our darndest to verify our sources that we recommend - not just trust them becaue we like what they are promising. If this report holds no good evidence, then our reputations have been set back years, and may never recover. This is worse then other types of hoaxes, because now, even when we DO get good genetic evidence, it's going to be mistrusted for a long time - thinking that it is 'just like the Ketchum report.' If it wouldn't have taken a body before, we are certainly getting closer to that point now, if this report turns out to be bogus. *If we don't develop more accountability and better protocols, then no one will ever trust our efforts. We will continue to be a joke. 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. I have read the NDA - it does NOT take a lawyer to understand it. It's patently onerous and manipulative at even just a first blush. I don't think any reasearcher should EVER feel so desperate that they feel they have to sign something like this. To continue your analogy - if someone comes and says they'll give you a new roof for half the price of anyone else, and they drive a vehicle that you have seen in robbery footage that you have seen on TV, but you then agree to pay them all up front, you HAVE to take some of the blame for your decisions, when that guy takes off with your money, or does a shoddy job. (I actually did something very similar to this once, for stucco on my garage - I learned, I accepted part of the blame - but I never claimed to be a leader in such things - If I claim to be a BF "researcher" I think I should be more competent.) Justin had all the same documents and situations thrown at him, and was encouraged to sign them by competent people involved, and then strongly, viscerally disuaded from involving any other sources that could vet the claims being made. I know I'm on a soapbox... I don't like it... and I appreciate your support. Each time I post these thoughts, I get a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach. I'm not wanting to tear anyone apart, and I feel for the good people that may have been duped (again, only the newest investigative efforts on the supposedly raw data will settle this) but we can't defend someone tooth and nail one day, viscerally oppose efforts to substantiate their work, and then claim 'hey, I was just a submitter.' If we are going to shepherd witnesses and their evidence, we better do our darndest to verify our sources that we recommend - not just trust them becaue we like what they are promising. If this report holds no good evidence, then our reputations have been set back years, and may never recover. This is worse then other types of hoaxes, because now, even when we DO get good genetic evidence, it's going to be mistrusted for a long time - thinking that it is 'just like the Ketchum report.' If it wouldn't have taken a body before, we are certainly getting closer to that point now, if this report turns out to be bogus. *If we don't develop more accountability and better protocols, then no one will ever trust our efforts. We will continue to be a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2013 ^ Agreed on the onerous NDA's and I made a post days back with all kinds of caveats for the future of Bigfootery to make it right and negotiate or walk in the future. No one should feel so hard-up in this field with good science available that boon-schwoggling negotiations should ever have to enter into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Tyler said: I know I'm on a soapbox... I don't like it... and I appreciate your support. Each time I post these thoughts, I get a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach. I'm not wanting to tear anyone apart, and I feel for the good people that may have been duped (again, only the newest investigative efforts on the supposedly raw data will settle this) but we can't defend someone tooth and nail one day, viscerally oppose efforts to substantiate their work, and then claim 'hey, I was just a submitter.' If we are going to shepherd witnesses and their evidence, we better do our darndest to verify our sources that we recommend - not just trust them becaue we like what they are promising. I'm sorry. Is there an online list of DNA scientists that will work with Bigfoot Researchers? I am not aware of one. Is there a list on this forum where all the people on it have been vetted? When Melba first came on the scene she came highly recommended by others - who have been around longer than you or I. In fact - the first time I ever heard her name it was in a conversation about her project - and I was told - if I had any samples worthy of consideration by Melba's project I should first send them to Dr. Meldrum and he would forward them on to her. Now, I do not blame Dr. Meldrum for any of this - but how many people heard his name and thought, "If Dr. Meldrum is involved it must be legit"... I don't even know for a fact he was involved - I just know his name was out there. So, I'm not sure who you want me to blame - but I sure don't and won't blame those who simply sent in samples. They trusted Melba and with no evidence or information to the contrary - why shouldn't they? Once they sent in their samples - then the problems started coming out. What were they supposed to do then? They couldn't pull out of her project.. Not everyone has the resources you and Bart have. I agree their needs to be more due diligence within this community - but I won't blame people who have little or no knowledge of DNA analysis and those who are capable of doing such work. The responsibility for Melba's work - is on her - no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) On the protocols and call to professionalism, etc and the shadow this casts, yeah probably. but, no one took BFers serious before, hard to really measure the change IMO....and Oxford already in this..and Falcon Project is a fairly high end effort....and the TV/film shows....some contribute, or not? I don't know....... we have some serious attention I don't want to derail on this, but must disagree with your first point. Perhaps you project your ability to read and understand fully the effect and consequences of legal documents to all researchers, as well as your level of risk aversion. IMHO unfairly, or maybe just in the spirit of let's tighten it up folks? .yeah sure..lol, we all agree I think on that...and having some "society' ....why doesn't it happen?...oh...other threads for that!...and it continues, the 'free rider' problem that plagues humanity... Now if what you are really wanting to say is about a specific person or group's accountability in this I understand your reluctance and so you throw all the submitters in that accountable group..? Ok, that's one way... I called mine out though, and it's the three main stake holders... after that few had the means or leverage to start a study or alter the course of this one.... I have read the NDA - it does NOT take a lawyer to understand it. It's patently onerous and manipulative at even just a first blush. I don't think any reasearcher should EVER feel so desperate that they feel they have to sign something like this. To continue your analogy - if someone comes and says they'll give you a new roof for half the price of anyone else, and they drive a vehicle that you have seen in robbery footage that you have seen on TV, but you then agree to pay them all up front, you HAVE to take some of the blame for your decisions, when that guy takes off with your money, or does a shoddy job. (I actually did something very similar to this once, for stucco on my garage - I learned, I accepted part of the blame - but I never claimed to be a leader in such things - If I claim to be a BF "researcher" I think I should be more competent.) Justin had all the same documents and situations thrown at him, and was encouraged to sign them by competent people involved, and then strongly, viscerally disuaded from involving any other sources that could vet the claims being made.. Edited February 17, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 No. It makes absolutely perfect sense to me. Sykes is testing entirely different samples. Some of his samples might actually be Bigfoot samples. If they are, then you have proof of a new species. Of course if nobody has managed to send a genuine Bigfoot sample to either of these studies, you have to question why. Wait a minute, I'm still scratching me head. Okay, Sykes is testing samples, are they Bigfoot samples? How do we know these samples are genuine BF? I gather that from reading on the board here that they aren't the same samples MK used. So, is there any inkling were these game from...Europe, Asia, USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) BTW those submitters who are displaying this study on their blogs and websites should IMO in the fashion they choose. There is not yet a definitive ruling of a failed work in it's entirety is it? Will it be? If it is will we make them put up a qualifying statement? Or make everyone cite to it if it turns out to be essentially correct, or ground breaking in spite of errors? Those are decisions for that Professional Society...tehe...otherwsie it is free speech and free choice...so....I dunno, I gotta get off here! Even if she is wrong or worse I don't think the efforts of the contributors should be ignored by association...or chastised really. Except Wally, b/c he has too much money. Is he a researcher? How can one correct his choices and hold him accountable? Would you turn down his help because of his trust and generosity to MK and submitters? EP actually seemed to have raised the alarms you suggest, (and seems oddly remote now, the footage not out), so did a few others now long gone. Paulides remains the mystery as he seemed quite close to the study, the originator apparently, the group with the most submissions, and yet perhaps almost no money in the pot?.(or so I read back a few pages...by someone!) But, he had reputation and position (his books well done) in the community to work with, to either vet or influence in ways guys like Derek didn't...or many others. The responsibility for the study (good or bad) here is with MK IMO and no-one can be held accountable for her behavior/results but her....and the $$ reward she did reap, and is currently reaping. It is not clear how the submitters will benefit so directly (or recover money!). Ok...I am done. I throw in the towel. time will tell, it may all work out just fine, somehow. it's been pretty amazing here really, thanks for this forum. Edited February 17, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I agree with what Tyler said about our need to be way more careful in the field with samples, documentation is critical, and a full chain of custody. This is the list as of 2010 of the top ten genetics/genomics/bioinformatics universities: 1. Stanford 2. MIT 3. Harvard 4. University of California -- Berkeley 5. University of Washington 6. Washington University in St. Louis 7. John Hopkins 8. University of California -- San Francisco 9. Yale 10. Princeton Top ten universities for ecology/evolutionary biology: 1. University of California -- Berkeley 2. Harvard 3. University of California -- Davis 4. University of Chicago 5. Stanford 6. Cornell 7. University of Texas -- Austin 8. Yale 9. Princeton 10. University of Arizona Thought maybe this would help. Will they do the work??? Questionable. But these universities surely can point us in the right direction. And I would imagine a large wallet would be a necessity in any lab with top flight geneticist that could do the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts