The Sasquatch Genome Project: Supplemental Raw Data
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 23rd, 2013
This page shows some of the supporting data and results directly received from outsource laboratories used in this study. This will include raw data from the sequencers as well as some summary information prepared and sent by the outsource laboratories. For clarification purposes, Sample 25 is an extraction performed robotically by the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory from 3 hairs plucked from the Northern California tissue sample labeled 26 in the study. Sample 26 was a 3 mm cube of tissue derived from the center of the same tissue as sample 25 and extracted by DNA Diagnostics. Both samples were run in tandem with identical results. You will note this in the summary chart. This data is intended to put to rest any questions about our study and the data quality. This is just a sample of what we saw consistently in all of the samples tested in the study. All testing was performed with human controls, up to 5 of them at times. The human controls all amplified and sequenced as expected on all platforms.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
This data is tantamount to putting only G’s, C’s, T’s and A’s in alphabet soup, and writing down what you have in your spoon.
Raw data is only as good as the person analyzing it. No more, no less.
Right next to the “View Raw Data” link on the sasquatch genome project web page there is another link, “View DNA Study” when you click on that, it gives you a page of links, but the second link down, labeled “Tables 1,5,6” are a number of pdf pages of tables which lay out where the samples came from, who they came from and the circumstances of how they got blood, saliva etc. I found that pretty cool….I mean, for a simpleton like me, at least it in words instead of numbers LOL…worth a look anyway.
PoeticsOfBigfoot, Jeff,
exactly. Raw data is only as good as the person analyzing it, which makes it no good at all, tantamount to what Jeff said, if stuck with us here. But it’s public now.
Publicly available raw data along with publicly available analysis accompanying it makes a different story altogether. Add to it the publicly available fact that someone paid the person who made it all public half a million for both data and analysis. It hints in directions regarding the person making it public, but that aside. It’s public. Not that it is made so for us here. And the public opinion is only as good as…oh, it’s too complicated for my English.
Dunno about everyone else. But I’m thinking I’m gonna get my raw data in the woods, or along a remote road one fine day. Not now, thanks.
If anyone needs convincing that the dialogue here is among the best and most lively on the subject, a visit to CRYPTOZOONEWS will suffice to prove the point. While I do respect Loren Coleman, CRYPTOMUNDO leads the way in lively discussion. CRYPTOMUNDO continues to lead the way.
Way to do, everyone. Don’t change a thing; this is still the place to be for incisive commentary on all things Cryptomundian.
I hope you do, DWA. As for this “raw” data, this is way beyond my knowledge and current capabilities. I don’t even know what to say.
Goodfoot: interesting comment about Cryptomundo; and the opposite of what sounded like was going to happen when Loren left.
I consider both sites worthwhile but have to admit things are much livelier here. I go over there to contribute as often as I can though.