LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I'm confident that the independent labs analyzing Melba's work will confirm that she was just a little off, and that the DNA samples are from my arch enemy, Mothman.
Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
I'm confident that the independent labs analyzing Melba's work will confirm that she was just a little off, and that the DNA samples are from my arch enemy, Mothman.
Wait, wait, wait. The submitter said the sample was Sasquatch, Ketchum (DVM) assumed that was the case, the resulting analysis came back human, so the conclusion is . . . hybrid?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Hey, you got there a lot faster and cheaper, with a lot less work.
Do you know Wally's number?
But the reason Stubstad thought these results meant something special can be seen in the quote above where he describes the mtDNA as having "prehistoric maternal origins."
In his report he goes on to explain:
So these two samples were from haplogroup H*. The asterisk means that this is a paragroup. That means that these samples are from the larger haplogroup H, but they don't have any unique markers that would place them in a specific subclade (or sub-lineages) of Haplogroup H. So far 21 subclades have been identified for haplogroup H, numbered H1 through H21. These two samples coming back H* just means that they couldn't be assigned to any of those 21 specific subclades.
But Stubstad didn't understand any of this. He seems to have thought that H* just meant haplogroup H generally, so he just googled "Haplogroup H" and found the wikipedia entry for it where he read this:
He also pulled up the 2004 article that was cited as a reference for this passage and read the abstract:
"The Molecular Dissection of mtDNA Haplogroup H Confirms That the Franco-Cantabrian Glacial Refuge Was a Major Source for the European Gene Pool" by Alessandro Achilli, et al.
Again, I can't post a link but I will when I'm able. Essentially the article is about how the subclades H1 and H3 (two of the most common H subclades) arose around 20-15kya in the Franco-Cantabrian region and spread out over Europe from there. The ancestors then of people from these lineages are the Cro-Magnon cultures that we associate with the Lasceaux cave paintings, etc. Their descendents make up a large chunk of modern Europeans (and Americans of European descent) whose mtDNA belongs to H1 and H3.
But Stubstad apparently just skimmed these items and somehow came away thinking that he had two examples of Cro-Magnon DNA from sources in America thousands of miles apart. That's why he thought they had something unusual.
He saw the date that these lineages first appeared---i.e. ca 15kya---and thought that meant they had prehistoric DNA. In fact all all they had was DNA from someone whose ancestor was a Cro-Magnon (i.e. just about any European).
But here's the fun part. He got this from an article that was specifically about H1 and H3. Their samples were both H* which means by definition they couldn't have been from H1 and H3. The most you can say about the H* samples is that they are European, maybe Middle Eastern, and arose sometime after ca. 30kya.
In his report he goes on to explain:
So these two samples were from haplogroup H*. The asterisk means that this is a paragroup. That means that these samples are from the larger haplogroup H, but they don't have any unique markers that would place them in a specific subclade (or sub-lineages) of Haplogroup H. So far 21 subclades have been identified for haplogroup H, numbered H1 through H21. These two samples coming back H* just means that they couldn't be assigned to any of those 21 specific subclades.
But Stubstad didn't understand any of this. He seems to have thought that H* just meant haplogroup H generally, so he just googled "Haplogroup H" and found the wikipedia entry for it where he read this:
He also pulled up the 2004 article that was cited as a reference for this passage and read the abstract:
"The Molecular Dissection of mtDNA Haplogroup H Confirms That the Franco-Cantabrian Glacial Refuge Was a Major Source for the European Gene Pool" by Alessandro Achilli, et al.
Again, I can't post a link but I will when I'm able. Essentially the article is about how the subclades H1 and H3 (two of the most common H subclades) arose around 20-15kya in the Franco-Cantabrian region and spread out over Europe from there. The ancestors then of people from these lineages are the Cro-Magnon cultures that we associate with the Lasceaux cave paintings, etc. Their descendents make up a large chunk of modern Europeans (and Americans of European descent) whose mtDNA belongs to H1 and H3.
But Stubstad apparently just skimmed these items and somehow came away thinking that he had two examples of Cro-Magnon DNA from sources in America thousands of miles apart. That's why he thought they had something unusual.
He saw the date that these lineages first appeared---i.e. ca 15kya---and thought that meant they had prehistoric DNA. In fact all all they had was DNA from someone whose ancestor was a Cro-Magnon (i.e. just about any European).
But here's the fun part. He got this from an article that was specifically about H1 and H3. Their samples were both H* which means by definition they couldn't have been from H1 and H3. The most you can say about the H* samples is that they are European, maybe Middle Eastern, and arose sometime after ca. 30kya.
Yeah but my fifteen-year old headshot from the mall isn't nearly as fetching as Ketchum's (DVM).
So . . . so he thought the modern European was Cro-Magnon, therefore hybrid, therefore Bigfoot?
Eureka!
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
You do understand that the only mention we have of Melba having "experts in the field" review her findings, is in fact that statement?
No mention of who these "experts" are, no mention of a time line, and most telling - notice how it is setup so that any results , findings, and conclusions that these "experts" produce will be filtered back through Melba, who will then release this information.
I assume you guys all immediately figured out her:
self publication of a "peer Reviewed" paper in a "scientific journal" will now be post peer reviewed by an invisible, mute band of "independant experts" whos information and results will be released by the original author!
Robin, please tell Melba that in the interest of the open and honest process of scientific inquiry, these "experts" need to be identified, and their results need to be released independant of any filtering of results through you or your "scientific Journal"
And no there is absolutely no reason why any "expert" needs to hide behind a veil of secrecy! If they are an expert, they need to tell us who they are, and what they found! Evaluating their results cannot be properly done without evaluating their level of education, experience, and history that lead them to be declared an "expert"
And one more thing Robin, next time you set up a fake journal, and install yourself as editor, please familairize yourself with the basic process of peer review, turns out it's far more formal and involved than, "can you look at this paper and tell me what you think!"
The Shrike
Philosopher
So the actual lynchpin holding the entire thing together, the source of the information that convinced them (incorrectly) that they really had something unique came from a guy named . . . Achilles.
So, bear with me now: Their big mistake was misinterpreting information from Achilles, and to publish that mistake and make it appear that they had something valuable they resorted to a journal edited by Ray Wallace.
There's a TED talk in here somewhere.
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
Just so we are clear here, Ray Wallace is not the editor of the journal! He is the editor of the specific paper (which admittedly is the total sum of all scientific endevor ever published in the jornal)
But Robin Lynne Pfeifer Haynes listed herself as the editor of the journal. She removed her name from the "website front cover" when that fact was called to the atention of the masses!
Alexander Achilles is an awesome name--he should be a pro wrestler.
So at this point, their new working hypothesis, since they have two BF samples that came back with "Cro-Magnon" human mtDNA, is that BF is a result of an unknown hominin mating with Cro-Magnons in Europe sometime before the end of the last Ice Age. Then these BF hybrids migrated across the Beringia land bridge into North America.
That seems like a pretty long migration, but Stubstad came up with a solution. He discovered the Solutrean Hypothesis. This is a recent model put out by a couple of legit archaeologists that posits certain groups of Cro-Magnon people (specifically the Solutrean culture) migrated across the North Atlantic following the ice flows. It's an interesting idea, but there isn't a lot of evidence for it and few people have signed on to it.
But for Stubstad and MK this helps make their BF/Cro-Magnon hybrid hypothesis seem more plausible. Cro-Magnon people migrated over to North American and mated with BF over here.
So at this point, their new working hypothesis, since they have two BF samples that came back with "Cro-Magnon" human mtDNA, is that BF is a result of an unknown hominin mating with Cro-Magnons in Europe sometime before the end of the last Ice Age. Then these BF hybrids migrated across the Beringia land bridge into North America.
That seems like a pretty long migration, but Stubstad came up with a solution. He discovered the Solutrean Hypothesis. This is a recent model put out by a couple of legit archaeologists that posits certain groups of Cro-Magnon people (specifically the Solutrean culture) migrated across the North Atlantic following the ice flows. It's an interesting idea, but there isn't a lot of evidence for it and few people have signed on to it.
But for Stubstad and MK this helps make their BF/Cro-Magnon hybrid hypothesis seem more plausible. Cro-Magnon people migrated over to North American and mated with BF over here.
Okay, so you give them the ice hopping hypothesis. Where is the novel primate DNA?
At this point in the study there isn't any. They had not done any nuDNA testing yet, and already they had reached these conclusions. Based on a couple of samples of human DNA that they thought were "ancient."
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I'm delighted with the paper. It's a grand reflection of footery's proper modernization into a newer world of kookery.
My biggest fear is Mothman, though. Confirmation of my fear is critical.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
It's worth noting at this point that "Cro-Magnon" people were anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens, who lived in Europe* c. 50 - 10 kya. It's an informal term, having no formal taxonomic status, and refers to neither a species nor subspecies, archaeological phase nor culture.
They were relatively robust and muscular, but not enough to warrant a separate species or subspecies name.
Just FYI.
*to clarify, they seem to have originated in NE Africa and the Levant, and spread from there throughout Europe and N Africa.
They were relatively robust and muscular, but not enough to warrant a separate species or subspecies name.
Just FYI.
*to clarify, they seem to have originated in NE Africa and the Levant, and spread from there throughout Europe and N Africa.
Last edited:
Which is what many of the critics are complaining about I imagine. What I don't understand is why anyone would accept this a priori conclusion; I mean even footers should be able to discern how weak this whole debacle is. The phony journal, the Robin Whatsherface editor fiasco, the peer-reviewed journal acceptance/rejection nonsense, and this new ploy about getting around to that review just now.
All based on the unverifiable idea that the submitted samples were tissue from Sasquatch.
Is this an accurate description of events so far?
With the third mtDNA sample it got more interesting:
Haplogroup L1 is indeed a very old African lineage, but again it is still present today in modern Africans and African Americans. However, while L1 does go back tens of thousands of years, L1A2 which they actually got is more recent and actually seems to have only arisen around 8000 years ago.
In any case, they made the same mistake of thinking that the date that the mtDNA lineage began equals the date that those humans mated with BF. In this case he got really exactly when he saw what appeared to him to be one of the earliest human haplogroups (since he made no distinction between L1 and L1A2).
In fact what he was doing was making a horribly racist statement without realizing it.
They had some mtDNA from a modern African American which he was saying was barely human! Man, did I cringe when I first read this part of the report.
Haplogroup L1 is indeed a very old African lineage, but again it is still present today in modern Africans and African Americans. However, while L1 does go back tens of thousands of years, L1A2 which they actually got is more recent and actually seems to have only arisen around 8000 years ago.
In any case, they made the same mistake of thinking that the date that the mtDNA lineage began equals the date that those humans mated with BF. In this case he got really exactly when he saw what appeared to him to be one of the earliest human haplogroups (since he made no distinction between L1 and L1A2).
In fact what he was doing was making a horribly racist statement without realizing it.
They had some mtDNA from a modern African American which he was saying was barely human! Man, did I cringe when I first read this part of the report.
That's correct I'm using it here in it's popular sense. The term we actually use today is "European early modern humans."
And the Achilles article is specifically referring to two particular lineages (H1 and H3) those arose in the Franco-Cantabrian region ca. 20-15 kya.
Last edited:
Spektator
Is that right?
I misread that as the "Soultrain Hypothesis." I envisioned the creatures dancing across the ice floes. Now I'm disappointed.
- Status