Guest FootDude 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. I disagree. With regards to her 'research paper', from what I have read so far this seems to be Melba's baby from almost beginning to end and that by her design. She was the Captain of this ship and sailed it exactly where she wanted. In hindsight she took on a project and role far beyond the reach of her meager skill-set (along with $400,000 from Wally Hershon), and managed to take a wealth of the best Sasquatch evidence collected over the last several years and turn it into a mockery of a research paper in the eyes of the 'scientific community'. Why wasn't a geneticist (or a group of them) involved in analyzing the data and authoring the research paper's conclusions? Edited February 19, 2013 by FootDude to correct language bypass violation within quoted material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Right on science critic. A later post (or perhaps earlier) says the paper has been rejected by the scientific community! Where? By whom? Cite one scientist who has tried to replicate the results and has failed. You can't. Texas A &M put their name on this study . A Prof. from Princeton opines that nothing in the paper suggests that the samples came from a new species or a hybrid Really? Isn't that what the whole paper says. Did he even read it? Any one can disagree for any reason, especially in cyberspace. But people, if you are going to post a criticism, back it up. Read the paper! Listen to the C2C interview. Think about what she wrote and said. All of her findings were confirmed by multiple labs in blind studies. All of her results are repeatable by any reputable lab. These 8 foot creatures are real and their DNA comes back human. They are Sasquatches. Gig'em Aggies. Johnny Football rules. Princeton, you need to bring back the single wing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Folks, please remember that attempting to bypass the language filter is a violation of the rules. Using abbreviations and/or asterisks to replace letters to do this will get you warning points!!! Also, if you quote another member's post and it contains a language filter violation, you are as liable for it's content as the original poster. You can edit quotes when you include them in your post. Thankyou!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Lets break it down in laymen terms. 1. Human mtDNA out of nonhuman samples = Indicates Contamination 2. nuDNA cant be identified = degraded (or new species?) 3. The "machine" gives confident quality for the samples = high quality/not degraded Now, if its contamination and good quality why doesnt BLAST give Homo Sapiens Sapiens? It doesnt make sense. And that a mtDNA surely isnt mixed/interbred with a horse or bear is scientifically sound to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 To add to your post data. 1. What are these hair samples that have never been seen by the examiner? 2. How is it logical to conclude that they have all been misidentified, and have also failed to yield any DNA that would suggest known wildlife? 3. Why did a much larger percent(compared to what is seen in human populations) of the 'contaminated' samples fail to amplify the amelx gene even though the a amely version showed up just fine? 4. Are we to conclude then that there are some strangely mutated humans running around the woods leaving short, thick, and uncut hair on food traps, under stick structures, and on packing tape 6 feet in the air? Oh wait a minute........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 So someone walks up to a sleeping Bigfoot, undetected, aims a camera at it, from 4 feet away, and only secures footage of it's hips and legs? Would this sleeping Bigfoot have woken up if they had moved six inches to the right and gotten it's head? Why didn't the camera man put the camera down, and jump on it with a hatchet? Even if he doesn't kill it, he's got a chunk of BF meat being carved out while on camera. I have a theory. Either they knew if the thing 'woke up' on camera, it would look like dog poo. Or they did film the thing waking up, and it looked like dog poo. So either way, we are never going to see the Asthmatic beast stand up on camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) ^^ I'm a bit curious why Matildas' hair looks nothing like any Bigfoot report, or supposed footage (i.e.the holy grail of footage, the PGF) of Bigfoot that I have ever seen. Patty has short, coarse, straight hair, as do any other sample I have seen a picture of. This Matilda is the first alleged BF I have ever seen with sheepdog hair. Unless Matilda sleeps under a mop, this does not jive at all with anything I have seen or heard to date. I understand in the wild a longer haired BF would have a very messy coat. This does not look like simply matted hair. Edited February 19, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 From reading responses regarding the Matilda pic.. it was taken at a distance, not provided, with a Zoom Lens in HiDef. .. Supposedly it's a small portion of the clip. However unless the rest is shown.. we are left with the shaggy DA on the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 To add to your post data. 1. What are these hair samples that have never been seen by the examiner? 2. How is it logical to conclude that they have all been misidentified, and have also failed to yield any DNA that would suggest known wildlife? 3. Why did a much larger percent(compared to what is seen in human populations) of the 'contaminated' samples fail to amplify the amelx gene even though the a amely version showed up just fine? 4. Are we to conclude then that there are some strangely mutated humans running around the woods leaving short, thick, and uncut hair on food traps, under stick structures, and on packing tape 6 feet in the air? Oh wait a minute........ Iam sorry, it was sarcasm. I just wanted to show that contamination (lousy workflow), cant be the mysteries Dady And also a DNA mixup (several contaminations) couldnt be the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 ^^ I'm a bit curious why Matildas' hair looks nothing like any Bigfoot report, or supposed footage (i.e.the holy grail of footage, the PGF) of Bigfoot that I have ever seen. Patty has short, coarse, straight hair, as do any other sample I have seen a picture of. This Matilda is the first alleged BF I have ever seen with sheepdog hair. Unless Matilda sleeps under a mop, this does not jive at all with anything I have seen or heard to date. I understand in the wild a longer haired BF would have a very messy coat. This does not look like simply matted hair. Dmaker, both Austin M and I report that the fur looks very much like what we saw in our encounters, for what it is worth. This is discussed a bit over in the Matilda thread over in Media Film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Why didn't the camera man put the camera down, and jump on it with a hatchet? Even if he doesn't kill it, he's got a chunk of BF meat being carved out while on camera. With a hatchet? Kai style? (Sorry...couldn't resist.) 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? Excellent point you make. Many appear to "want" to believe otherwise. Perhaps doing so doesn't stroke the gray area of having to say...oops me wrong. Also would like to comment on the EP video. I'm new to this BF game (study) and I've read the gauntlet of what is supposedly said (I have to take with a grain of salt-that what had been said is fact, perhaps even to an extent paraphrased). I just was at EP site and it gives no details when he will release the remaining video's. He says that he provided "evidence" to be tested to a NY University, and to MK also. Seems like he funded some of the samples he sent in to this university. Other evidence (6 samples) was sent to MK.... one of those samples was used to sequence a complete Sasquatch genome in Dr. Ketchum's study. It would appear that he has switch (based on previous statements concerning the video-as proof for Bigfoot) his study to physical proof via DNA route. I can almost guarantee that out of 10 people (if and when the remaining video is released-under what ever market) at least 4 will say fake. Those 4 will IMO be made up mostly from this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) ^ I am xposting this,and again I hope it is ok to post this phone conversation with Erickson, it is close to verbatum, but my memory is not perfect, of course. http://bigfootforums...880#entry704884 Edited February 19, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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. Thanks for the explanation - an interesting twist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I've read that one of these Matilda videos was already determined to be a hoax by Bill Munns. The walking/growling Matilda footage was just a Chewbacca mask. But we are supposed to trust them here... this video of a ballooning blobsquatch in HD is the real deal, yessiree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts