Jump to content
Guest

Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

Recommended Posts

Guest Jodie

I searched and it returned "Nothing Found" , oh well, I probably already read what Parn said on here anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slimwitless

Jode, I edited my original post to fix a bad URL. It's should work now. Just search for 'parnassus'. Let me know if you get through it.

Edited by slimwitless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Jode, I edited my original post to fix a bad URL. It's should work now. Just search for 'parnassus'. Let me know if you get through it.

Ok I found it. Shorter version of what Stubstad wrote: "parnassus is a troll, just trust me on the numbers and reasoning."

As I said, he may be all kinds of a good person and he can say what he wants about me, but trust me is not enough. If you wont share the data then stop making these outrageous claims. (Seriously. You are the one who sounds like he wants to be remembered as the Einstein, to use your accusation regarding Ketchum).

Particularly offbase when he starts (apparently) turning occurrences in GenBank into probabilities using simple math. This starts to look like genetic probability according to, well, a makeup man. Sorry, Richard, but you really are not on the the bus. Not to mention the entire issue of small sample size, in the statistical sense. How many samples has she gotten? 200? 400? Plz talk to a statistician about trying to cherry pick two from a large " n."

And that's not all. Regardless of the math, what we have are two or three(it varies with the telling; only two are at all similar) humans.

Two or three humans.

Now what is the logic? That two of the three humans are so closely related (according to "trust you") that they aren't human????? And the third one is so unrelated that it isnt a human either? And that the three of them are somehow Sasquatches? is the test for Sasquatch simply being a human whose DNA isn't in GenBank? Wow!!!!!! Katie bar the door. We got more sasquatchs than humans on this planet!!! Hmmm I thought my wife smelled bad the other day after her workout......

Richard I know you're reading this and I would advise you strongly to stop believing in your own powers of deduction and enlist the help of a John Hawks. Or a population geneticist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TimB

I'm not a Stubstad apologist, but I have a different take on what he said. I believe what he was saying was that, in the mtDNA, the closest human population was the southern African people, the Khoisans. He didn't say the human mtDNA came from that tribe, he said that it was closest to that tribe. He then remarked on the nuclear DNA, saying it has multiple polymorphisms that were atypical of any known human population. His conjecture is that this nuDNA is NOT human. I don't have the background to evaluate his evaluation, just wanted to share my interpretation.

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

I'm not a Stubstad apologist, but I have a different take on what he said. I believe what he was saying was that, in the mtDNA, the closest human population was the southern African people, the Khoisans. He didn't say the human mtDNA came from that tribe, he said that it was closest to that tribe. He then remarked on the nuclear DNA, saying it has multiple polymorphisms that were atypical of any known human population. His conjecture is that this nuDNA is NOT human. I don't have the background to evaluate his evaluation, just wanted to share my interpretation.

Tim

not so much...

Only the third specimen mtDNA is of the African haplotype.

His calculations of the probability of a Sasquatch are all based on the mtDNA, which is completely human. He mentions some nuDNA gene results but doesn't say they are not human. Finding a sequence which is not in GenBank is not the same as saying it doesn't exist in in any known human population. Far from it. As I mentioned and linked previously, such "new" sequences appear regularly. Jesse James was one famous example. U think he was a Bigfoot?

.....

By the way, the BLOGGER THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED has a new article .... Highlights: The journal is Nature....

This is false. I don't know who started this story?Paulides?

But it is false, and this is not one of my speculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HairyGreek

This is false. I don't know who started this story?Paulides?

But it is false, and this is not one of my speculations.

Slim is talking about Robert Lindsey. Lindsey is the one who stated this as "confirmed by his source". Slim is still going on there no matter how much I harass him not to. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm confused. Does someone have solid intel that the Ketchum paper is NOT with the journal Nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Slim is talking about Robert Lindsey. Lindsey is the one who stated this as "confirmed by his source". Slim is still going on there no matter how much I harass him not to. LOL.

Well, I go there too (just between u and me). I shower afterwards.

Chris:

U r confused.

"Solid" is correct. "intel" is a corporation.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I still don't understand what you're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

I still don't understand what you're saying.

The story that the journal is Nature is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm confused. Does someone have solid intel that the Ketchum paper is NOT with the journal Nature?

I think the issue is there is no solid evidence either way. No one on Dr. K's team is talking, and they would be the only real reliable source in this case. Lindsay's source is a supposed boyfriend of Dr. K, but it's not even clear if Lindsay himself talked to this boyfriend. For now, it's an interesting rumor. And yes, I read Lindsay's BF posts. I'm with Slim on that one. Say what you want about him, but he sure can stir the BF pot.

BTW Chris, I referenced you in a recent blog post.Happy Birthday Patty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks. And can you share how you know this? Do you know which journal it her paper is with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The story that the journal is Nature is false.

Wow, that's a new one. Last I heard was that it's unknown. Do you have a source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest slimwitless

Now Hairy, I never said it was true. I only said it was reported. Like it or not there are people sending Lindsay information (many of the things he's reported have been confirmed by other sources). I'm also certain the Nature rumor isn't a creation of his imagination. Of course, that still doesn't make it true.

We've heard the rumors Ketchum missed Honobia because she left the country. Lindsay says it was London. Parnassus seems to think she was vacationing in France (at least that's how I read his posts). Others report the trip was directly related to the review of her paper. Now Parnassus says he knows the paper hasn't been accepted by Nature. Clearly there's a pattern developing. Maybe Ketchum is Dr. Jekyll to Parnassus Mr. Hyde. Just to be clear, that was entirely speculative.

Edited by slimwitless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...