Guest TwilightZone Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 MIB-- In the interview she seems to indicate the Matilda footage is hers. But no problem, I'll take your word for it that she has a license for only a short clip. So my real question then is why show that at all?! She talks about how no one will believe video anyway, then she presents a few seconds of a ridiculous ballooning furball. Nothing says 'I filmed Bigfoot' like a ballooning furball. Oh, and she said she had photos showing how Bigfoots differ from one another much the same as people do. I wonder what the catch is there? Maybe the Bigfoot people have to sign a release before she can use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Again, I can only comment on Justin's sample - for that one, Fahrenbach and Meldrum and another hair expert phd all said it was not consistent with primate. Hi Tyler - this was probably covered by you elsewhere, but I don't remember reading it. If they said that the sample you had from Justin was not consistent with Primate, did they say that it was consistent with bear? Or alternatively, did Fahrenbach feel it was indicative of Sasquatch samples that he's analysed before? Ta, FG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Has anyone notice the near identical Supplemental figures 8, 9, 10? I can not spot any difference between 8 and 10 (they both have Q30 scores of 88.6) sup fig 9 has a Q30 score of 88.4, and has a slight variation of the Flowcell Chart. The Q score distribution histograms look identical for all three - even with a non smooth distribution (ie the peak patterns are identical). Does anyone know if this is typical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 If y'all can't tell, (it's pretty obvious I hope), I am more interested in the EP video than I am in Melba's paper. For years though it has been well known there were NDA (several) between her and Adrian. He can't move ahead without her publishing a paper we were told. He leaned on her to deliver good DNA so folks would see proof that a video was not a computer animated event or well done hoax. So, now, much to my surprise she has kinda delivered. It's a paper anyway. Not a slam dunk by any means but a paper. So where is his end of the bargain? On his site right now it's not been updated and reads the project is done and is waiting on Melba. www.sasquatchthequest.com Now, if the banned one from here RL is correct, (?) Erickson has shopped this footage to a tv network or studio. Believe if you want. Rumor is Nat Geo has it. If that's true, maybe the delay is due to their schedule and timeline. Also if that's true, it wouldn't be a secret. I'll say one thing about RL, his early leaks have been proven to in fact be true. Human hybrid, homo sapiens momma, unknown daddy. Was done and kept getting rejected and handed back. The early leaks he had about Erickson are fairly accurate. I don't know how this will end, but it's sure a mess right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FootDude Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) 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. ^^This^^ One of the most troubling aspects to me so far, is there seems to more in depth analysis coming from thegenes, genesrus and you than those who Ketchum hired to co-write the report over a 5 year period in the first place. That our in house guys seem to be more competent than the conclusions contained in the report speaks to how sloppily the Ketchum Report was done, as well as the wealth of resources we our blessed to have here at BFF. So then why is she showing pictures of sticks and horse make-overs? If photos are so unreliable and all ? You only put unreliable 'filler' in a report if there is very little substance in the report in the first place. Edited February 19, 2013 by FootDude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I wouldn't doubt that a TV network has the EP footage, and they can certainly keep things quiet. I am certain that Ketchum wrote the entire paper on her own, rather than let the various contributors write their respective sections. Much of the speculation on origins does focus on the genetic analysis, but Ketchum is not a geneticist. Her hybrid theory pretty much proves that. She seems to have mistaken the unrooted phylogenetic tree as a phylogeny, and concluded that bigfoots are a mix of human and lemur. Then again, Kruglyak, a supposed genetics expert, also made the exact same mistake. The unrooted phylogenetic tree ignores evolution, as it only describes similarity. Genes can change (mutate) in multiple ways, and it is possible for two completely unrelated species to have genes that are similar. What Ketchum's phylogenetic tree shows is that the bigfoot genes are not between human and pongid; human genes are between bigfoots and pongids. In other words, bigfoots are new, and evolved from humans. No cross breeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tyler H Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So Trent contaminated it? Why did Ketchum get a single contributor of a different haplotype? If you go back and read my report, they tested to make sure the contributor was not a match for the technician that worked on it. However, there WAS a match for Justin. My memories could be fallible, but it seems to me that Melba has changed her story and her haplotypes several times. People involved with Justin and privy to direct claims from Melba early on, will tell you that bear WAS in fact detected at the start. Suddenly, they started claiming there was not any bear and/or there NEVER was any bear. Hi Tyler - this was probably covered by you elsewhere, but I don't remember reading it. If they said that the sample you had from Justin was not consistent with Primate, did they say that it was consistent with bear? Or alternatively, did Fahrenbach feel it was indicative of Sasquatch samples that he's analysed before? Fahrenback thought it was not a match for Sasquatch, same for Meldrum. Martyn Obbard was the third phd and he concluded it was bear. But hair morphology analysis is not definitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FootDude Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I am certain that Ketchum wrote the entire paper on her own, rather than let the various contributors write their respective sections. That's what I'm starting to conclude as well. Based on the analysis I've read so far, her paper seems to be very poorly constructed and her conclusions faulty. Which begs the question, why wasn't a geneticist involved in writing the paper from the beginning? The one saving grace might be that there is enough raw data for other experts to analyze and make their own conclusions, but that's what 5 years and $400,000 was supposed to produce in the first place. It's becoming quite clear that Melba Ketchum should never have been handed the keys to the proverbial 'hen-house'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So here's a question, if Ketchum's paper is sloppy and poorly constructed, how did it pass peer-review(as she claims) at the journal she aquired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So then why is she showing pictures of sticks and horse make-overs? If photos are so unreliable and all ? Sorry I missed this excellent point, dmaker! Exactly my thoughts... I can't comment on the DNA part of this but the photos and video provided sure seem to do more harm than good to the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ishcabibble Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Well, this will be my last post on this thread as I consider the DNA study, if not a hoax, an attempt at analysis carried out by incompetent "researchers". I say this because I think we need to start lumping all the authors of this paper into the same spotlight. Yes, MK was the primary author, but there are others who are listed as co-authors. Even if they didn't have a hand in the writing, the're name is attached to the paper. These folks need to be held accountable to the same degree that MK is. Every academic article I've ever been involved in included a discussion of who the authors would be so that everyone was aware of what was being published under their name. With this "study", we have a paper published in a non-existent journal, seeking serious consideration, when the conclusions are what they are, and no one has gone after the co-authors. The hey with NDA's, if I was one of these co-authors and saw what a mess this paper was, I'd come forward to clear my name and try to distance myself from MK and hope to protect my own reputation. Unfortunately, their name will be forever attached to this article. One last note. I am talking about the authors of the "paper" and not the submitters. I will vehemently defend anyone who submitted samples. The burden of proof rests squarly on the shoulders of the authors of this paper, not just MK, but on all of the people listed as authors. Edited February 19, 2013 by AaronD to remove abreviated profanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ^ I'm betting that this wont be your last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 19, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 19, 2013 It might be once the mods see that he tried to bypass the banned word filter... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 While valiantly trying to recover from the eyestrain of reading 50 odd pages posted in such a short time, some thoughts come to mind. First, a comparison to the excellent work on Denisovans by Svante Paabo et al: Krause, Johannes; Fu, Qiaomei; Good, Jeffrey M.; Viola, Bence; Shunkov, Michael V.; Derevianko, Anatoli P. & Pääbo, Svante (2010), "The complete mitochondrial DNA genome of an unknown hominin from southern Siberia", Nature 464 (7290): 894–897, doi:10.1038/nature08976, PMID 20336068 Sorry you'll have to cut and paste to find it online and it is already been much discussed on this forum. Alas Dr. Ketchum's paper is no comparison in terms of the purity of the samples and the care in which it was done. I very much hope that this whole kerfuffle has gotten the team at Dept. of Genetics at the Max Planck Institute in Liepzig, Germany, interested and that they are the mystery scientists who have contacted Dr. Ketchum to do a check on her work. It is shocking to me to see that hair/flesh sample being handled, and I hope that all us field researchers take it as a lesson. There should be no trace of any other kind of mammalian DNA in any sample you or I collect in the field. Get yourself some latex gloves, keep them in a sealed sandwich bag in your pocket, and keep some extra sealable bags with dessicant in them in another freezer bag in your pockets for sample collecting. If you get samples get those bags in cold storage asap, maybe bring a cooler in your truck or vehicle. What a shame that such hard won samples and hard work should be so easily disregarded because of the possibility of contamination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FootDude Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So here's a question, if Ketchum's paper is sloppy and poorly constructed, how did it pass peer-review(as she claims) at the journal she aquired? So far Melba Ketchum has made a number of claims. How many of them have turned out to be reliable or accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts