Huntster Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, larryzed said: Because in your little world science is apparently evil. I'm that powerful? My beliefs keep Science from accomplishments? The Force is with me? Just now, gigantor said: Let me know when you guys had enough fun... LOL! I like fun, and Larry is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 5 minutes ago, larryzed said: Wheres the feral human being tested? Wheres the bigfoot giving a blood sampke? Really not that hard. Answering questions with questions, especially rhetorical ones, is de rigueur for avoiding hard issues. Don't blame you really. Bone up on your DNA lessons and perhaps we can discuss it some day. Because right now? You're not ready. If you were we'd be talking science without you dancing around playing word games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 8, 2023 BFF Patron Share Posted June 8, 2023 8 hours ago, Huntster said: Kinda'. I was banned, but I returned upon invitation to come back. Same profile name, same avatar, same guy. I didn't sneak back as Hamster. Yep, I kinda remember that as an ex-MOD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 3 minutes ago, gigantor said: Let me know when you guys had enough fun... Well, science isn't especially fun I agree, but I'll be danged if I can get anyone interested enough to engage in some. Because that chart I posted what? Two, three times? has info in it that may have something or nothing to do with Sasquatch. But there is something important there if I could just get someone interested enough to slow down and talk about it. Good luck doing that, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 8, 2023 BFF Patron Share Posted June 8, 2023 8 minutes ago, gigantor said: Let me know when you guys had enough fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 8, 2023 BFF Patron Share Posted June 8, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, hiflier said: Well, science isn't especially fun I agree, but I'll be danged if I can get anyone interested enough to engage in some. Because that chart I posted what? Two, three times? has info in it that may have something or nothing to do with Sasquatch. But there is something important there if I could just get someone interested enough to slow down and talk about it. Good luck doing that, huh? For those that don't have the book or the search function mastery could you maybe post an old thread link where they could bone up on that specific discussion @hifliter ? Purty please! Edited June 8, 2023 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 (edited) 33 minutes ago, bipedalist said: For those that don't have the book or the search function mastery could you maybe post an old thread link where they could bone up on that specific discussion @hifliter ? Purty please! Thanks for asking, bipedalist. But it may not be necessary. What I was alluding to for the posted chart is that even if it isn't accepted to be showing evidence of Sasquatch DNA mutations it does show something that is nonetheless MORE than interesting. Some of the footnotes in the chart say that any ONE of those mutations are rare in Humans. Dr. Haskell Hart, who created the chart after going through the Sasquatch Genome Project's raw data results, said that one of the mutations was rare in 20,000 Human genomes that were registered in the Genbank back in 2012. I've been thinking about that. How it might relate to the degraded Human DNA found in the soil samples of the Olympic Project's Washington nest site? Not saying there IS a correlation, but what if the degraded HumanDNA from the nest site had one or two (or three!) of the same mutations as what is in Dr. Haskell Hart's Table 22 that I'd posted here. Wouldn't it be interesting if the same mutations were present from both sources? Remember, one of the chart's mutations is rare in Humans. Two, or even three, of those mutations in one Human genome would be highly improbable. In fact according to the Genbank at that time two of those mutations together in one Human genome didn't even exist. All WE would have to do then is pressure Dr. Disotell to release this raw data from the nest site DNA results so that Dr. Hart could go through and assess that data to see if there were any alignments of Dr. Disotell's data with the data from his Table 22's list of mutations. Sound like a plan? I think so. Because if only genus Homo was found at the nest site, and it matched somewhat with the mutations in Table 22, then that would really be something for everyone to know. Filling in the blanks: It could mean that genetically odd Humans may have been the nest builders. Agreed? Oh where is Larryzed when one needs him! Edited June 8, 2023 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 8 hours ago, larryzed said: .......There are standards to peer review and the Scientific method........ Let's review. Here is the opening paragraph in the first round of peer review by the journal Nature: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/author_responses_to_referees__first_review.pdf Quote I must state at the outset that I am not a geneticist, and hence not fully qualified to evaluate the DNA data in proper critical fashion. Bottom line: there is obviously the backbone here of a paper that includes a lot of interesting data, but it needs a lot of work before it can be accepted. 1. My main advice (discussed further below): include better graphics (especially a similarity tree/distance tree/phylogram/cladogram of some sort).......... This "peer", at the outset, admits that he/she isn't qualified to evaluate the work, yet this is who Nature gives the task to? Are these the "standards" you refer to, Larry? But there's more. After two full rounds like that, Ketchum sends Nature a letter of appeal and request of reconsideration. In this letter: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/cover_letter_nature_board.pdf Quote ......The peer reviewers failed to even read the manuscript because we were asked for data or criticized for not having data that was already in the manuscript or supplementary information.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 It's got to be a carcass, Larry? Behold this "peer" discuss the DNA acquired after a sasquatch was shot: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/authors_response_to_passing_reviews.pdf Quote .......5. Sample 26 - It is stated in the study that Sample 26 was derived from a shooting incident. The inclusion of such a sample in the study may be inconsistent with contemporary scientific ethics concerning the treatment of both human and animal study subjects and the procurement of research specimens from such. Moreover, this description casts the provenance of such a sample as murky, at best. Author’s Response: We have removed any references to the alleged shooting incident. Line 481......... Sorry, Larry. That's unethical. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 (edited) I had read every word of the correspondence exchanges between the SGP and Nature's peer reviewers when everything first came out. And a lot of Nature's statements still grate on me to this day. I don't pick stupid battles just for the sake of lashing out at ghosts or simply to display any skills at debate. The paper that was first submitted did need revisions and revisions was what it got- as was asked for. But it was obvious from the beginning that the paper was doomed. Not because it wasn't "scientific" enough, but because it was based on a subject that couldn't be allowed to have a scientific audience or credence in any way shape or form. As far as the BF community was concerned? It wasn't good enough that the paper got rejected. Nope, let loose the hounds anyway to make sure that Dr. Ketchum and the study was so vilified, and so brutally, that the level of the attack itself became suspect. To this day I truly am convinced that it was an organized effort aimed at making sure that the science of Sasquatch, no matter who conducted it, was slated for destruction right from the get go. If folks today STILL don't think that the subject of Sasquatch existence isn't a dangerous topic then read the entire SGP presentation and then think again. An enormous amount of power and effort has gone into slamming the study and attacking D. Ketchum that it should be obvious that NO ONE, Dr. Disotell, Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Mayor, or any other researcher or Sasquatch study won't get the same treatment to themselves or their careers if any of them ever gets as close to the truth about the reality of the creature as Dr. Ketchum did. My advice to everyone is to THOROUGHLY read through ALL articles in the SGP and they will see the obvious purposeful dismantling of the study. And for no other reason than that it threatens billions if not trillions of dollars in revenue brought in from just about every outdoor activity one can think of- whether its corporate harvesting or recreational activities of all sorts. Say what you will folks. The scientific DNA study results are there. But the BEST way to get folks to not look at them is to trash the authors of that study. An effort that has never ceased in its vehemence at every moment and every chance that the subject comes up. But I see no one slamming the results of the Washington nest DNA results? I don't know why that is, because as far as I can see those results are basically corroborating Dr. Ketchum results. BOTH the SGP and Dr. Disotell are saying HUMAN. BOTH of them. Ketchum had 130 samples, Disotell had five. But BOTH came out Human. And yet only Ketchum got vilified? But of the two, Ketchum and Disotell, which one SHOWED THEIR WORK? Which one was a five year double blind study across 12 independent labs? Which one presented papers to NATURE? Which DNA outcome went PUBLIC? Which study was the most courageous? And then which one got the worst backlash and STILL gets the worst backlash to this day? Time to wake up folks because we have vicious wolves in the herd who work hard to stifle truth and discovery at every turn. Rant over? You bet it isn't. Edited June 8, 2023 by hiflier 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 40 minutes ago, Huntster said: It's got to be a carcass, Larry? Behold this "peer" discuss the DNA acquired after a sasquatch was shot: https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/authors_response_to_passing_reviews.pdf Sorry, Larry. That's unethical. THAT post is worth its weight in gold, and worth a repeat: 43 minutes ago, Huntster said: .......5. Sample 26 - It is stated in the study that Sample 26 was derived from a shooting incident. The inclusion of such a sample in the study may be inconsistent with contemporary scientific ethics concerning the treatment of both human and animal study subjects and the procurement of research specimens from such. Moreover, this description casts the provenance of such a sample as murky, at best. Author’s Response: We have removed any references to the alleged shooting incident. Line 481......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 28 minutes ago, hiflier said: ..........Rant over? You bet it isn't. Rant on, Friend. I wish I could stamp that post with three or four crowns. It was perfect. Yup, Nature and their hand picked "peers" were assassins, and they await the next fool who dares bring this up again. Sykes was no sooner in the grave before Margaryan rose up to shoot up Sykes theory on an earlier migration out of Africa. Zana had to be a common slave, even though there was absolutely nothing common about her. The fix is in, and it's here to stay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 45 minutes ago, hiflier said: I had read every word of the correspondence exchanges between the SGP and Nature's peer reviewers when everything first came out..... Your 3 paragraphs are pretty spot on... A lot of us knew at the time but I dont think the players in this study expected the levels or weight that was coming and thought if they really had the goods they would win the day... but this information was never going to be allowed in the main... under no circumstance. I have to wonder if the Doc would have given up longer ago if she had not also had her experiences with the SSQ. Having the moles in her circles did not help either... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryzed Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 11 hours ago, gigantor said: Let me know when you guys had enough fun... Threats from the Admins? Classy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 1 minute ago, larryzed said: Threats from the Admins? Classy.. Spitting at the administration? Dumb, but expected from you.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts