Guest Check Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I keep coming back to the EP videos, "better than PGF". How do we know these in fact exist? Who exactly has gone on record as seeing them? It seems most folks speak of them as if there is no question they exist and are irrefutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 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. anyone find it interesting that he has had nothing published since 1999? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 19, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 19, 2013 It's like getting Shelby to come back and comment about the new fuel injected, variable valve timing Mustang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If there's a paycheck involved, ol' Carol might just do it, too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It claims that there were fantastic efforts at preventing contamination. THat may be true for some of you, but not for all samples. Regardless, even forensic labs where people wear masks and hair nets, and gloves, still have contamination issues. And with the illumina testing system's sensitivity, merely breathing near the sample may be enough to contaminate it. So Trent contaminated it? Why did Ketchum get a single contributor of a different haplotype? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Because the samples were different one was bear and one was squatch SY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Maybe you should go back and read what I posted again. There are different standards between science and the law for what passes as "evidence". Science can go along with the - possibility and discuss and debate it- but in a court of law there is little to no wiggle room for possibilities - especially when you are dealing with things like DNA. It's either accepted proven science - or it is not. I would love to see this argued in a court of law though - as part of "expert testimony".. It would be interesting to watch. I don't have to read it again, your saying if DNA is present in a court case There is no "wiggle room" or no other alternative ? what if someone planted the blood, hair strands,etc... of the person and set them up ? and there is many other scenarios that can give enough wiggle room for an elephant . Your trying to say that the law is absolute with Dna, it is not, That's why we have a judge, jury,expert testimony,witness testimony, evidence, Etc... And just like with the paper there is arguments on both sides, so to say the paper's science is not sound, is your and some other people's opinion,nothing more or less until proven otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) del Edited February 19, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I keep coming back to the EP videos, "better than PGF". How do we know these in fact exist? Who exactly has gone on record as seeing them? It seems most folks speak of them as if there is no question they exist and are irrefutable. There was an interview done by Mary Green on Albertasasquatchsightingreports.com that decribed in detail many of the videos. It used descriptions from John Bindernagle too, I checked and that article has since been taken down. I'm sorry, I tried to recover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ^ archive.org might have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Here is the address. http://www.albertasasquatchsightingreports.com/assr/Read_this.html I tried the wayback machine and no luck. This interview is also referenced in the Erickson Project thread in the Media section of the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So Trent contaminated it? Why did Ketchum get a single contributor of a different haplotype? And how did the sample even get passed the screening process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 1) Most of us here, maybe all? don't really have the expertise to evaluate this report. 2) They said it must be contaminated because it came out human...Get it? And it IS human--or half human. They think that is must be a contamination thing, but the human is from the specimens....which never occurred to the critics. 3) It is a start. Look on the bright side, it's better for your cardio vascular self. And more is to come. So cheer her on and hope for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Found this on line ... If anyone here has posted it Sorry for the duplicate... This is from the web site of one of the many field reseachers who submitted samples for the DNA testing. He pretty well spells it out as to why opinions of the the know-it-alls ain't worth a dung bettle's burden. The asinine conclusions reached by people who claim to be trained in science (after consulting with their "buddys in genitics") who have read only the abstract of a scientific paper is the height of arrogance and totally negates the validity of their claimed enducation. Hollow as a bird-house gourd. (The guy that wrote this IS a real professional from Tennesse who HAS seen two of the creatures from which his sample were obtained.) And by the way; this show's NOT over by a long shot. Quote Scott: Sunday, February 17, 2013Bigfoot DNA Study Critics - READ THE STUDY I am growing weary of reading the same criticisms of the DNA Study. Here are the top two "complaints" "To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," - Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University "All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant" - ArsTechnica.com To paraphrase what the critics are saying, all 110 samples are contaminated with human DNA. In their opinions this is the only way to explain these "odd" results. Dr. Ketchum contracted the following laboratories to run BLIND test on the samples. All these labs duplicated the "odd" results. Remember some of these labs are forensic labs used by law enforcement. People are in jail because of the work of these labs. So the assertion by the critics is these labs contaminated the samples. If so there are many people in jail that need to be let go because these laboratories can not be trusted to process the evidence. Family Tree DNA Genomics Research Center, 1445 North Loop West, Suite 820, Houston, TX 77008 SeqWright, Inc., 2575 W. Bellfort St. Suite 2001, Houston, TX 77054 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 6000 Harry Hines Blvd. NA7.116, Dallas, TX 75235-9093 USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center 1441 Eastlake Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90033 Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station, TX 77843-2257 Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences 2355 North Stemmons Fwy., Dallas, TX 75207 This assertion of contamination and that "no data has been presented to support these claims" calls into question the integrity of the following Universities: Texas A&M Microscopy and Imaging Center (Performed the structural analysis using electron microscopy) Genomics Core Laboratory at the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) (Performed the Whole Human Genome SNP analysis) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas - (Performed - Whole Genome Sequencing) The critics are also calling into question the submitters and their samples. I KNOW I handled my samples correctly, following EXTREMELY strict protocols to avoid contamination. I have documented this in more than one video. The DNA Study also went to great lengths to make sure to avoid contamination. Serveral of the submitters hold Doctorates, below is the list: Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev, Dr. Angelo Capparella, Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb†Sentell. I would think these gentlemen would know how to correctly handle DNA samples. Not to mention well respected researchers to include Derek Randles. So the assertion is we all mishandled our samples, I do not think so! The study had great detail on how the samples were handled to avoid contamination. The study has a complete subsection on the handling of the samples to avoid contamination: Prevention of DNA Contamination by Forensic Methodologies. Also remember many of the samples were not hair but blood, saliva, and a piece of flesh. The flesh was "cored" and a sample taken from the center of the flesh. This would make it completely sterile. The only way this could be contaminated is by processors inside the study or one of the University facilities mentioned above. It is clear to me that the critics are not reading the paper or worse reading the paper and ignoring the documentation because of a personal bias. When the independent review is complete we will have our answers, until then I say again, and for the last time READ THE PAPER, provide POINT by POINT, DOCUMENTED, AND REFERENCED criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Hoosierfoot - it's all so "beautiful" and "amazing" - what needs to be proven? Yes, that was sarcasm.. It seems as if her emotions trump her logic at times. It's tough to not lob a snarky comment her way every now and then:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts