I'm new here and just finished reading the Bigfoot DNA thread which began in Nov. 2008. Why does it seem to take forever to analyze what is supposed to be bigfoot DNA? It's not just this example, it's all of them from Monster Quest to the BFRO, whatever. And why so few hairs to sample? When my old tom cat sleeps on a pillow he leaves enough hair to knit a skarf and yet I read of 2 or 3 hairs regarding the Skookum cast for instance.What drives people to continue this search when evertthing turns to 'inconclusive' at best and usually just disappears altogether?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
It takes them a year to figure out how to say "inconclusive" to make it sound interesting.
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
There was a case a couple years ago where some hairs were found in Canada (Saskatchewan?) near the location of a reported bigfoot sighting. The hairs were sent off for DNA analysis and we were all wondering how long it would take for the "Inconclusive" result to come back. A couple weeks later the lab reported. Bison hair. Not at all primate. No mystery. No doubt. 100% positive. Plain old bison hair. Not even the bigfooters could put a positive spin on that one.
Yes, I remember reading that as well. Am I correct that the DNA sample from the Snell Grove Lake thing never went anywhere?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
The reason why DNA testing takes so long is that this sort of DNA test is fairly labor and time-intensive, and there aren't many labs that do it. The ones that do typically have a significant backlog, and frankly Bigfoot isn't a very high priority.
More at Paulides website (maybe it has been there all along) confirming my idea of the general outlines of his scheme for passing off the DNA and hair of isolated tribal people as that of Bigfoot.
http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html
http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html
Last edited:
The idea that Bigfoot is some sort of human is, as I have previously suggested, the only avenue open to bigfootery for its long term survival as a credible story in the age of DNA and trail cams. If Ketchum's paper is published in any real journal...It's gonna be devil take the hindmost... Will Meldrum cave on his apefoot hypothesis, toss his Sasquatch book on the fire as simply wrong?
or will he strike back at Paulides and Ketchum, precipitating the biggest rift yet amongst the believers, siding with Todd Disotell and the non believers, pointing out the obvious flaws in the tribal Bigfoot theory?
or will he strike back at Paulides and Ketchum, precipitating the biggest rift yet amongst the believers, siding with Todd Disotell and the non believers, pointing out the obvious flaws in the tribal Bigfoot theory?
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
Nope. Not even on his death bed. And at this point simply because (I think) he actually believes the nonsense he's proffered. At one time I had a serious brain fart and thought he was 'crazy like a fox' in that Bigfoot would never be disproven, at least not in this lifetime, so he knew his 'scientific reputation' was likely safe no matter what he vomited. But the 'cosmic truth' is he's just a maroon. A wannabe intellectual ne'er-do-well (and quintessential nerd) who simply stuck it out long enough to get an advanced doctorate degree - which, sadly for him, allowed him to think his **** don't stink...but it sooo does.
ReverendClog
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 435
Bigfoot DNA: Stubstad Speaks
There is currently a supposed 'earth shattering' revelation just around the corner in Sasquatch territory. The much maligned, (and deservedly so), Erickson project and various other 'serious' bigfootery types have collated and analysed several samples and arrived at what appears to be a startling conclusion - the samples are '100% homo sapiens sapiens'.
And I bet you can guess what this tells the 'footers can't you?. Correctamundo -Bigfoot is a type of unclassified human, with DNA from all those pioneer women he used to capture to mate with!.
Words, and many other things fail me at this even-more-cockshreddingly-awful than usual reasoning.
Here is an interview with one Richard Stubstad, a statistician who was apparently kicked off the sooper-sekrit analysis project http://http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/interview-with-richard-stubstad-is-bigfoot-human/.
I guess most of you know where the footers hang out on the 'net so you'll know where to go.
Most of the relevant info that R.Stubstad appears to have pattled his nonsense from seems to come from here http://www.ebc.ee/EVOLUTSIOON/publications/Achilli2004.pdf.
There is currently a supposed 'earth shattering' revelation just around the corner in Sasquatch territory. The much maligned, (and deservedly so), Erickson project and various other 'serious' bigfootery types have collated and analysed several samples and arrived at what appears to be a startling conclusion - the samples are '100% homo sapiens sapiens'.
And I bet you can guess what this tells the 'footers can't you?. Correctamundo -Bigfoot is a type of unclassified human, with DNA from all those pioneer women he used to capture to mate with!.
Words, and many other things fail me at this even-more-cockshreddingly-awful than usual reasoning.
Here is an interview with one Richard Stubstad, a statistician who was apparently kicked off the sooper-sekrit analysis project http://http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/interview-with-richard-stubstad-is-bigfoot-human/.
I guess most of you know where the footers hang out on the 'net so you'll know where to go.
Most of the relevant info that R.Stubstad appears to have pattled his nonsense from seems to come from here http://www.ebc.ee/EVOLUTSIOON/publications/Achilli2004.pdf.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Why mtDNA?
I'll just leave this here, it's about that loveable nipple-less mammalian egg-laying venomous furball the duck-billed platypus.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/07/platypus.genome.explains.animals.peculiar.features.holds.clues.evolution.mammals
And don't forget we share something like 35% of nearly 7,000 tested genes with the banana plant.
Mind you all this talk of shared genes isn't strictly accurate, it's a lie-to-children, genes aren't that precise, it's more accurate to say we share a % of genetic materia or homology.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/07/platypus.genome.explains.animals.peculiar.features.holds.clues.evolution.mammals
And don't forget we share something like 35% of nearly 7,000 tested genes with the banana plant.
Mind you all this talk of shared genes isn't strictly accurate, it's a lie-to-children, genes aren't that precise, it's more accurate to say we share a % of genetic materia or homology.
Originally Posted by parnassus
a. There are some pretty bad journals in my field and i suspect in other fields as well.
b. It probably hinges on the honesty and credibility of those who submitted the samples.
-----
Shrike wrote:
Well, the bone sample apparently came from these loons, and the "tissue sample" is supposedly from a habituation site in Vermont. What kind of reject from a turnip truck could not see the importance of confirming the provenance of these samples? This seems far sketchier than anything Meldrum used for his ichnotaxon paper.
------
I somehow don't expect that the "finders" will identify themselves as "mogollonmonsters.com" or that reviewers/editors of lesser journals will perform background checks (Although I do think "Finding Bigfoot" should prompt them to) .
Incidentally I found it interesting that one "Bigfoot" group has submitted some 50 samples to Ketchum. The latest "moneymaker!"
a. There are some pretty bad journals in my field and i suspect in other fields as well.
b. It probably hinges on the honesty and credibility of those who submitted the samples.
-----
Shrike wrote:
Well, the bone sample apparently came from these loons, and the "tissue sample" is supposedly from a habituation site in Vermont. What kind of reject from a turnip truck could not see the importance of confirming the provenance of these samples? This seems far sketchier than anything Meldrum used for his ichnotaxon paper.
------
I somehow don't expect that the "finders" will identify themselves as "mogollonmonsters.com" or that reviewers/editors of lesser journals will perform background checks (Although I do think "Finding Bigfoot" should prompt them to) .
Incidentally I found it interesting that one "Bigfoot" group has submitted some 50 samples to Ketchum. The latest "moneymaker!"
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,654
I listened to a radio show which featured Ketchum. She said that her DNA findings and paper were rock solid for Bigfoot and essentially unassailable to peer review. She went on to say that she would submit to various publications and if they rejected it it would have to be for reasons other than the factuality of her material. IOW, only some kind of anti-Bigfoot bias would stop the approval. Interestingly, she said that if it does get rejected by the first string of publications there is a (unnamed) publication which will publish it. IOW, she has some Ace-In-The-Hole publication which she is certain will accept what she gives. Maybe it's some cryptozoology or Fortean journal.
jayh
Muse
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 525
This is not a case of percentages adding up to 100%. Since gorillas share substantial amount of DNA with humans, something like 78% gorilla should also be a substantial amount like human....
[since my wife has (lightheartedly?) placed bigfoot on her 'safe' list, I guess it's in my best interest that they don't show up..]
Last edited:
RayG
Master Poster
I'm skeptical anyone is getting rich, but I'm guessing Matt Moneymaker's three-day BFRO Expeditions are bringing in some nice spending money.
There are 14 expeditions from April - early October of this year listed on the BFRO website for example, and the fees range from $200 - $500 per person.
Keep in mind the BFRO provides no camping gear, food, or transportation on these expeditions.
If each expedition has at least 10 paying customers then the 14 expeditions should raise somewhere between $28,000 and $70,000.
Most of those expeditions are from the last week in July - the first week in October, or something like $20-50k in a span of a little more than two months.
RayG
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,654
But we don't really know if the ongoing viability (staying afloat) of the BFRO requires regular influxes of cash from Wally Hersom.
If you look behind Moneymaker and Meldrum you see at least one Sugar Daddy.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,752
Evidentally, the Jacobs Photo is still under debate, Oh, and they have two Bigfoot bodies.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/...ct-using-two-dead-bigfoot-bodies-for-samples/
From the blog of the SILVER FOX.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/...ct-using-two-dead-bigfoot-bodies-for-samples/
From the blog of the SILVER FOX.
The Shrike
Philosopher
That guy will seriously spout anything.
- Status