As far as I can tell, there is no provenance, chain of custody or anything else with these samples. I had a brief conversation with Richard Stubstad in which I asked questions about how the samples were obtained and how and why he thought they were genuine. His answer was basically that at least two of them were 'vetted' beyond question. I replied that I thought that all of it. in the end, was simply a collection of storries. I was hoping for a scan or something from an actual lab to look at but that was not to be. I think this was back in October or so and occured on Robert Lindsay's blog.
-
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
While I don't think any respectable peer-reviewed journal will publish "Bigfoot has human DNA," I do think there are a number of not-respectable journals that would, and to them the provenance might matter. Of course, as you say, the stories of how they were collected are just stories. One possible exception is the sample(s) which came from the "habituation site" in Kentucky...the so-called Erickson Project. Those folks supposedly have video to back up their story that the specimen came from a "bigfoot", but so far the "vetting" of that footage has not been done, at least not publicly.
The place of origin of these samples may also become an issue. I have suggested that to make a hoax more believable, one could first collect samples from an extended human family from an isolated tribe eg the Hupa. Then one would carry the specimens around the country and mail them in to the lab from various locations. Alternatively, the lab could be in on the scam and simply represent the specimens as having come from various locations. In my scenario, I would not include, on my list of collection sites, the place at which they were actually collected, in case some enterprising journal editor decided to check on the tribal DNA there.
This scenario could create the illusion of a couple dozen widely-separated but closely-related "individuals", sworn by 'footers to be phenotypic bigfoots, whose DNA looks to be human, but who have sequences which are not in GenBank. Statistically, if one were to (wrongly) assume randomness, this would be a very unlikely event. Voila! Bigfoot is human.
Last edited:
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
I am sure, beyond any doubt, that they have found hairs that are not human, nor are they from any known primate, in the areas where they are looking for bigfoot. I am also sure, beyone any doubt that these hairs are not from any known species of animals in the area. This is becose costume ape hair is yak hair.
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Cool Hand Carol
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 4
stats will rule out human DNA source
Parnassus - Statistical analysis of multiple samples will rule out the 'DNA from a lost tribe' hoax scenario you write about.
Even lost tribes (like the San and Andaman groups) are still related closely to modern humans, diverging less than 100k years ago. So the number of polymorphisms that differ from our own will be low. For any known DNA sample, the relative number of polymorphisms that differ from our own determines the time of divergence. If BF DNA comes back with a higher number of nuclear polymorphism differences than denisova, then the samples could not have come from any modern human group.
If the mitochondrial DNA gives a different divergence date than the nuclear DNA, then that means BFs are hybrids, in a corollary to the findings regarding melanesians (with denisova) and europeans (with neanderthals).
Furthermore, since there are many samples, they can be compared to each other. If there is no pattern of similarity among them, then the DNA is definitely hoaxed or at least contaminated. But if the samples cross reference each other.... then the conclusion cannot be refuted...BFs are real, relic humans.
My guess, is that Ketchum's paper will be published in early April. ~90 days after the acceptance date, which leaks and rumors suggest came in early Jan. I do not have insider knowledge. I am just guessing.
Parnassus - Statistical analysis of multiple samples will rule out the 'DNA from a lost tribe' hoax scenario you write about.
Even lost tribes (like the San and Andaman groups) are still related closely to modern humans, diverging less than 100k years ago. So the number of polymorphisms that differ from our own will be low. For any known DNA sample, the relative number of polymorphisms that differ from our own determines the time of divergence. If BF DNA comes back with a higher number of nuclear polymorphism differences than denisova, then the samples could not have come from any modern human group.
If the mitochondrial DNA gives a different divergence date than the nuclear DNA, then that means BFs are hybrids, in a corollary to the findings regarding melanesians (with denisova) and europeans (with neanderthals).
Furthermore, since there are many samples, they can be compared to each other. If there is no pattern of similarity among them, then the DNA is definitely hoaxed or at least contaminated. But if the samples cross reference each other.... then the conclusion cannot be refuted...BFs are real, relic humans.
My guess, is that Ketchum's paper will be published in early April. ~90 days after the acceptance date, which leaks and rumors suggest came in early Jan. I do not have insider knowledge. I am just guessing.
Cool Hand Carol
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 4
This will all be answered by the paper. My guess of the timeline:
Spring, 2011 - paper submitted
Summer, 2011 - reviewers suggest major changes
Fall, 2011 - re-write, maybe more data. Second round review.
Late Fall - Notice of 'publishable upon minor edits.' Press embargo begins.
Early Jan 2012: Notice of acceptance. Publication date probably ~90 days out.
So my best guess for the publication is April.
Spring, 2011 - paper submitted
Summer, 2011 - reviewers suggest major changes
Fall, 2011 - re-write, maybe more data. Second round review.
Late Fall - Notice of 'publishable upon minor edits.' Press embargo begins.
Early Jan 2012: Notice of acceptance. Publication date probably ~90 days out.
So my best guess for the publication is April.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Bigfoot does not exist.
Whatever DNA is being tested, whatever samples have been gathered, and whatever paper may or may not come to light, it/they will not support the idea that bigfoot exists.
If a report is produced, believers certainly might believe and claim that it supports the existence of bigfoot.
That really changes nothing, though. There is no such thing as bigfoot. That was the case all along, and no report from bigfoot cheerleaders is going to magically make bigfoot appear in the real world.
Any report from these folks should already be labeled NASI Part Two, because that's how legit and accurate it's likely to be.
Whatever DNA is being tested, whatever samples have been gathered, and whatever paper may or may not come to light, it/they will not support the idea that bigfoot exists.
If a report is produced, believers certainly might believe and claim that it supports the existence of bigfoot.
That really changes nothing, though. There is no such thing as bigfoot. That was the case all along, and no report from bigfoot cheerleaders is going to magically make bigfoot appear in the real world.
Any report from these folks should already be labeled NASI Part Two, because that's how legit and accurate it's likely to be.
Last edited:
Fall of 2011 - ......maybe more data.......
Since this is in the past why is it 'maybe more data'????
In fact, that entire post makes no sense the way it is written.
Either it is not your paper and you are a troll and/or an enthusiastic believer, or your post shows why the paper will not be accepted by a legitimate publication.
Cool Hand Carol
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 4
"more data" -- a very common reviewer comment. Often asked in association with controls and with statistical interpretation.
Cool Hand Carol
New Blood
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 4
btw - I said "maybe" because rumors exist of a re-write request, but not of an 'additional data' request. That part was purely my speculation, based on my personal experiences with peer-review. That's why I put "maybe."
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Are you talking about the rejection of Ketchum's paper that was discussed right here in this very thread?
Along with the samples that were also discussed right here in this very thread?
Cainkane1
Philosopher
No thats Boggy DNA.
What am I missing?
This is 2012.
The 'maybe more data' relates to the fall of 2011.
Since 'maybe more data' would be in the past was more data requested or was it not?
If you can't even answer that simple question will your paper be nothing but rumors and gossip?
Last edited:
There is no hate. Sorry if it comes across that way.
I'm just confused as to what you are trying to say and what you are trying to do.
What paper are you writing? If you are writing a paper on Ketchum why don't you know if additional data was requested? If you don't know if more data was requested your knowledge of the subject matter seems to be extremely limited so what's the point of writing a paper when you don't have any information?
I'm just confused as to what you are trying to say and what you are trying to do.
What paper are you writing? If you are writing a paper on Ketchum why don't you know if additional data was requested? If you don't know if more data was requested your knowledge of the subject matter seems to be extremely limited so what's the point of writing a paper when you don't have any information?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Cool Hand Carol,
I think you are taking a little flack because many here have talked about/debated what you are saying here in the recent past. It sounds like your source might be Robert Lindsay which may indeed have some value but, for thr most part, is a repeat of stories obtained from bigfoot uber believers. I think that in the end, there will be no publication of any dna project in any recognized journal. It may be published in a bigfoot friendly website format advocating bigfoot as a human relict critter but that is all. I also think that a big debate will occur between believers and non-believers with the usual arguments about science not giving the 'evidence' a fair hearing. Regarding the samples allegedly being tested, no proof of collection exists and that is why I think no journal would accept them. William Parcher and Parnassus have argued here for the possibilty of someone collecting samples from a native population and sending them from different parts of the US and maybe Canada which I think is worth your consideration. There are people who, for lack of a better term, i would call professional bigfooters who profit from a continued popular belief in bigfoot and you would do well to give that some thought as well.
I think you are taking a little flack because many here have talked about/debated what you are saying here in the recent past. It sounds like your source might be Robert Lindsay which may indeed have some value but, for thr most part, is a repeat of stories obtained from bigfoot uber believers. I think that in the end, there will be no publication of any dna project in any recognized journal. It may be published in a bigfoot friendly website format advocating bigfoot as a human relict critter but that is all. I also think that a big debate will occur between believers and non-believers with the usual arguments about science not giving the 'evidence' a fair hearing. Regarding the samples allegedly being tested, no proof of collection exists and that is why I think no journal would accept them. William Parcher and Parnassus have argued here for the possibilty of someone collecting samples from a native population and sending them from different parts of the US and maybe Canada which I think is worth your consideration. There are people who, for lack of a better term, i would call professional bigfooters who profit from a continued popular belief in bigfoot and you would do well to give that some thought as well.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
- Status