• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MonsterTalk.org - Word!

desertgal said:
Please show us a direct quote from Jeff Meldrum where he specifically claims to have never claimed to have found any mysterious hair samples.
Click to expand...

I am confused. Wasnt it originally stated that Meldrum and Disotell claimed to have never found anything unusual?

I dont think Meldrum has ever flat out stated that word for word, but If you read any of his books and articles, you can see that they are full of innuendos.
 
makaya325 said:
I am confused. Wasnt it originally stated that Meldrum and Disotell claimed to have never found anything unusual?
Click to expand...

Meldrum said, very clearly, in the article you linked to, that hair that has been found by other Bigfoot researchers is not reliable as Sasquatch hair, since there is no verified sample of Sasquatch hair for comparison. Finding hair in the woods is not unusual. What would be unusual is if it were proven to be Sasquatch hair-which, at this point, cannot be done.

I dont think Meldrum has ever flat out stated that word for word, but If you read any of his books and articles, you can see that they are full of innuendos.
Click to expand...

Fine. If he didn't say that word for word, then don't accuse him of having said it, word for word. Since you made the claim, show us the innuendos. Also, please show us where Jeff Meldrum has failed to send any suspected Sasquatch hair found by other researchers to a qualified scientist. For that matter, please show us why it is Jeff Meldrum's responsibility to send any suspected Sasquatch hair, found by other people, to a qualified scientist.

Back up at least one claim you have made.
 
Last edited:
50/50

I did find it interesting that Disotell says that if you have a hair sample - even without the root - there's a 50/50 chance they can get DNA out of it. That's not bad considering they used to require a root to get such information.
 
linked to, that hair that has been found by other Bigfoot researchers is not reliable as Sasquatch hair, since there is no verified sample of Sasquatch hair for comparison. Finding hair in the woods is not unusual. What would be unusual is if it were proven to be Sasquatch hair-which, at this point, cannot be done.
Click to expand...

Easy: Miscare and contaminants.



Fine. If he didn't say that word for word, then don't accuse him of having said it, word for word. Since you made the claim, show us the innuendos. Also, please show us where Jeff Meldrum has failed to send any suspected Sasquatch hair found by other researchers to a qualified scientist. For that matter, please show us why it is Jeff Meldrum's responsibility to send any suspected Sasquatch hair, found by other people, to a qualified scientist.
Click to expand...

Take a look athe Scientific america article with Meldrum.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy
 
doctoratlantis said:
I did find it interesting that Disotell says that if you have a hair sample - even without the root - there's a 50/50 chance they can get DNA out of it. That's not bad considering they used to require a root to get such information.
Click to expand...

I am suspicious of that claim. Hair is actually one of the trickiest remains to extra DNA out of. You are much better with feces, bones, or flesh/blood
 
makaya325 said:
It was said by Disotell in the interview Kitz provided. Disotell said that Meldrum has yet to come upon anything unusual.

Have a look at this.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/jeffm.htm
Click to expand...

Are you talking about this quote?
"Memo: Bigfoot trackers also have found hair in the wilds. Meldrum said it is hard to classify it, since there is no identified Sasquatch hair for comparison. "

Whatever you're talking about, BF:LMS has a lot of info on hair. On page 262 Meldrum talks about a 1993 analysis by Dr. Sterling Bunnell, M.D. - at that time you couldn't get DNA from hair. Bunnell suggested that some samples from Northern California were in the "human-chimpanzee-monkey" group. But note that included "human" - and at least as far as Disotell's testing has gone, none of the samples he's gotten have come back as mysterious primate.

Has Meldrum followed up with Bunnell? Dunno.
 
Not familiar with Polymerase Chain Reaction, are you? it was used on 40,000 year old mammoth hair...
 
Disotell may mean that 50% of hairs have DNA attached to them (skin cells, tissue, fluids, etc). Not getting it from the follicle, but from stuff stuck to the hair. I'm guessing.
 
Whatever you're talking about, BF:LMS has a lot of info on hair. On page 262 Meldrum talks about a 1993 analysis by Dr. Sterling Bunnell, M.D. - at that time you couldn't get DNA from hair. Bunnell suggested that some samples from Northern California were in the "human-chimpanzee-monkey" group. But note that included "human" - and at least as far as Disotell's testing has gone, none of the samples he's gotten have come back as mysterious primate.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is because of the unqualified collectors of the evidence.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Disotell may mean that 50% of hairs have DNA attached to them (skin cells, tissue, fluids, etc). Not getting it from the follicle, but from stuff stuck to the hair. I'm guessing.
Click to expand...

That is what gets me. Isnt the root of hair the main source for DNA extraction? Without the follicle, I am pretty sure there is no source to extract the DNA.
 
makaya325 said:
That is what gets me. Isnt the root of hair the main source for DNA extraction? Without the follicle, I am pretty sure there is no source to extract the DNA.
Click to expand...

There is DNA in the core of the hair. That's why it's an advance in science. It's been an available technique for a couple of years - I heard about it first on the "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" podcast. Disotell seemed to think it was pretty unremarkable now - even though I, like you, still found it amazing.
 
makaya325 said:
Maybe that is because of the unqualified collectors of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Well - as Disotell pointed out, having the evidence contaminated does NOT mean that he couldn't find Bigfoot DNA if it was in there. In fact, it sounds pretty easy. If they got the DNA - which would certainly be in the feces or blood (and possibly hair) if it were collected as a fairly new sample - then his lab could tell which part of the sample was a human contaminant and which was unknown primate. (or Giant Sloth or Bear or whatever...)

That was something I learned. Contaminated DNA evidence of Bigfoot is not worthless. But to date none of the samples have had any mystery primate in them.
 
makaya325 said:
1. I am listening to the program right now

Not answering three. Wait until i am done with the program
Click to expand...

IOW, you started involving yourself in the discussion and making assumptions before either listening to the show or reading all that I relayed from it. True? Yes or no.
 
kitakaze said:
IOW, you started involving yourself in the discussion and making assumptions before either listening to the show or reading all that I relayed from it. True? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

True. My bad Kitz.

I really find Doctor Atlantis as a very likeable guy.
 
doctoratlantis said:
Well - as Disotell pointed out, having the evidence contaminated does NOT mean that he couldn't find Bigfoot DNA if it was in there. In fact, it sounds pretty easy. If they got the DNA - which would certainly be in the feces or blood (and possibly hair) if it were collected as a fairly new sample - then his lab could tell which part of the sample was a human contaminant and which was unknown primate. (or Giant Sloth or Bear or whatever...)

That was something I learned. Contaminated DNA evidence of Bigfoot is not worthless. But to date none of the samples have had any mystery primate in them.
Click to expand...

When he said 30 samples over the last 15 years, was he talking about hair samples, or other physical samples, such as feces, blood, etc. to?
 
makaya325 said:
I am suspicious of that claim. Hair is actually one of the trickiest remains to extra DNA out of. You are much better with feces, bones, or flesh/blood
Click to expand...

On what basis would you question the veracity of a statement made by an expert in DNA sequencing?
 
makaya325 said:
When he said 30 samples over the last 15 years, was he talking about hair samples, or other physical samples, such as feces, blood, etc. to?
Click to expand...

Sorry - I thought he made that clear. He's specifically mentioned blood, feces and hair as well as something that turned out to be non-biological - or had all the DNA eroded from it by exposure to the weather.
 
makaya325 said:
When he said 30 samples over the last 15 years, was he talking about hair samples, or other physical samples, such as feces, blood, etc. to?
Click to expand...

Sweet African Wild Ass! Listen to the something something - ing show and answer your own something something - ing questions. About 30 DNA samples sequenced by him personally in 15 years. Everything. Poop, blood, hair - all negative. All not Bigfoot.

Little mak, why don't you come back and post after you've listened to the show and stop spraying stupid all over it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom