Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Tyler, you are one of my favorite posters here. Callin' it like it is, not how one wants it to be. Seems like this community is always one side or the other, so a calculated view is appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) ok..lol now I am worried again, by this statement she made, "oh it is solved, absolutely solved"....which seems a little over the top to me.... I mean wouldn't one qualify that just a bit more, especially if they didn't get published in a major journal? Why should she hold back? Well...tactical I guess, leave one small scientific possibility that you could have gotten something wrong in all those assertions, observations.......b/c that caution would indicate to a listener what a very careful scientist you are?..to recognize the possibility of error in the complex venture? But, it is in keeping with her previous FB statements.. So, I dunno....if it is nailed down, and absolutely solved, what now? nothing more i can even think about on all of this.... manana! Edited February 18, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Question: Why does the infamous Facebook page only have 2 pics of her? That thing should be loaded with pics of Bigfoot. So much of this doesn't make sense. Is she trying to prove these things period? Or trying to prove them with DNA and pics of stick structures, braided horse manes, and footprint pics? It's like a football team limping into the playoffs without their star player, and he gets health enough to play but they leave him on the bench for some reason. She said on c2c that she has photos. EP has supposedly better than patty footage. Way better is claimed. Where is it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Hoosierfoot - it's all so "beautiful" and "amazing" - what needs to be proven? Yes, that was sarcasm.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Here is a professional biochemist, that does not believe the paper needs to be "Salvaged" because the analysis is correct. Lately all we have heard from is the critics and their list of scientist that say the DNA Study is "bunk". Dr. Ketchum has posted a statement in support of the DNA Study from a scientist with credentials that rival the studiescritics. David H. Swenson, Ph.D. who is a Biochemist and has over 39 journal publications to his credit. (Click here to read his resume) Below is his statement: David H. Swenson Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences. My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law. Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call. Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis. It appears Dr. Ketchum has made her raw genome data available to Dr. Swenson and he was able to confirm her findings. I am afraid we are now entering the "debate" phase of the study. We are going to have Geneticist and Scientist review her data and publish conflicting opinions on what the data means. But, this was the ultimate goal, to get legitimate scientist to take a hard look at the DNA and Bigfoot as a living, breathing, biological entity. posted on : http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/ Dr. Swenson does seem to have a significant CV, and am happy to have more qualified scientist chiming in. But his statement offers little substance to the debate. Did his desktop have difficulties with Blast, or were the results not consistent, as others are now finding? How did this help him understand more about the paper? Huge project - ok he can have that one! Homology with human mtDNA - ok. Abbreviated studies - hmmm, I wish he had said thorough. Human and non-human sequences. Yup, got that too. But even if his opinion of BF is true (it may well be), the nuDNA data in the manuscript does not lend itself to concluding that BF is a HS. I appreciate the challenge with not having a BF reference sample, but I my abbreviated analysis of the data they presented is confusing, to say the least. I will try and find out a way to post some of my analysis to explain this further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silent Sam Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Hoosierfoot - it's all so "beautiful" and "amazing" - what needs to be proven? Don't forget "overkilled beyond reason". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 A link to YouTube for the interview https://www.youtube....h?v=-LOnLTeuCCY I am listening to the C2C interview now. Fascinating. Thankyou so much Mitchw for posting. In explaining why her work is not on genbank, she explained that she attempted to do that and was told that it had to be labeled with a species. Since there is no recognized species yet, she couldn't do that. They then said upload it as human but we will not accept it without the consent of the donor. She explained to them that it would be impossible to get a Sasquatch to sign off on his or her sample. I hope she names the journals that refused to read/review/publish the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Question: Why does the infamous Facebook page only have 2 pics of her? That thing should be loaded with pics of Bigfoot. So much of this doesn't make sense. Is she trying to prove these things period? Or trying to prove them with DNA and pics of stick structures, braided horse manes, and footprint pics? It's like a football team limping into the playoffs without their star player, and he gets health enough to play but they leave him on the bench for some reason. She said on c2c that she has photos. EP has supposedly better than patty footage. Way better is claimed. Where is it??? Her argument is that visual evidence is unreliable and not a valid way of proving anything. The reasoning behind this is due to the ever- questioning legitimacy of the PGF. Thus, if one of the most remarkable pieces of visual evidence is still poo pooed and debated decades later, why should the study bother to release any of theirs if there is a great likelihood that it too will be dissected to such a ridiculous level of misinterpreted minutia and baseless accreditation to any third or fourth party claiming responsibility. I just happen to disagree with her and would like to see it anyway, but that, in effect, is what she is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) So then why is she showing pictures of sticks and horse make-overs? If photos are so unreliable and all ? Edited February 18, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) What I want to know is this -- is that a picture of a horse that belongs to Melba, is it a horse that belongs to someone who submitted a sample - or is it a stock photo? Anyone know? Edited February 18, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Honestly I would not bother about the horse braids...yes the PGF by itself cannot solve the mystery, likewise, a controversial DNA report with an ambiguous snippet of a sleeping squatch does not help her case either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 To add to poignant's comment: A sleeping squatch that was breathing laboriously. In fact: It looked as thought it was told "Hey make sure we can see you breathing" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Somewhere in one of these 700+ pages I mentioned that proving Bigfoot is exactly like proving someone guilty in a court if law. Let's say a guy robs a bank and fights to get away and stabs someone. We have the blood of a victim. We have the robbers blood mixed in too. Would a prosecuter go to make the case solely on that DNA evidence? Heck no! Get the surveillance tape and it's case closed. Same here. "here is some DNA and here is a vid taken at the same spot we collected the hair or blood or whatever. This tape shows an upright huge hairy being. The hair in that being matches the hair in this sample." See what I mean? I thought that was the point of her and Erickson tying each other up here. Make it a 1-2 punch that science can't ignore. We got the 1-? Where is the 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Difference being --- DNA in humans, the collection and testing is proven. Not for bigfoot. There is no way the case could be made for bigfoot in a court of law based on a blood sample and video - using Melba Ketchum's study - at least not yet - and any prosecutor or defense attorney would NEED her science to be sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Hi All, I have not yet listened to the C2C interview, but noticed one quote from HODS that she mentioned the single stranded DNA could be a result of the "hybridization process". Did she provide a reference for this? Single stranded DNA that is not undergoing repair/replication can not be propagated in cells (cells could not properly divide). There may be some data in the manuscript that could be valid, the hair analysis and the mtDNA work. The hair work points to unknown, the mtDNA to modern human. The nuclear DNA stuff is what I have issues with. The sequences that align in GenBank come back as human, pointing to human. The unknown points to unknown. If it were not so dis-similar to human, I would have a less hard time to understand this. A close relative to a known species should have similar DNA - that is just how it works. Something so different may be BF, but I don't think this means it is a Hs sub-species. The raw nuclear data may be fine - but the processed analysis that has been put forward does have issues. There are a number of things that makes me suspicious of their generation of their contigs and supercontigs. This is not the raw data! It is a stuck together composition, that they used a human chromosome 11 as a template. Yet it is not very homologous to the template! Perhaps the raw data was reproduced in independent labs. In the end the data is the data, and if there is no contamination and it was properly assembled, and verified and reproduced, I will happily accept the result (although I will be scratching my head). But again, if the results hold true, still do not know why they are calling this HS. I want this all to be correct as I would love to work with BF DNA and cell lines in the future, but with what has been put forward, I can not buy it (although I did shell out 30 bucks for the opportunity to read this work). The authors can put forth as many expert "peer" reviews as they like (this in it self does not make something true), but when I can analyze the data myself, and come to the same conclusions, is when I will accept this. Let the debate continue! In reading the paper, do you feel you could replicate what was done to obtain the novel raw data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts