Bigfoot DNA

[jerrywayne]

And so what did all of the NDA's mean if she absolutely could not discuss her findings before publishing in a peer reviewed journal? According to Igor her paper was rejected numerous times, this is a last ditch effort IMO. I see as a way to generate income from the Russian front be that through Russian television specials, tourism, etc....

Have I missed something important in all this exciting news: why is there an assumption that the Ketchum report is going to be revealed in a Russian journal? Others have remarked on this, but I must have missed the reference.

Also, I wonder if this is timed to preempt the Oxford paper, and wonder if the Oxford paper will indirectly support the Ketchum report, or refute it. Well, I really don't wonder too much.

 

[Castro]

Wow, has this elusive paper finally been published? Hmm, interesting...Let's see;

http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.htm

their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review...

...still under peer-review?

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/11/igor-burtsev-i-dont-want-new-discovery.html

Igor Burtsev: "We waited a couple of years the scientific publication by Dr. Melba Ketchum. But scientific magazines refuse to publish her manuscript..."

...they refuse to publish the paper??

So, what's new exactly except from some internet blah blah?

 

[Sonny2]

So they decide it's from an undocumented primate. Now what? Still doesn't prove BF exists, just some undocumented primate. Or can they actually construct what it looks like? (Sorry, my field of expertise is far from DNA.)

 

[William Parcher]

Undocumented primate DNA comes from an undocumented primate. It cannot come from anything else.

The choices are few and you refuse to face them.

If we get DNA from a creature that doesn't exist then we have to look at supernatural. We are not there yet but if we get there it will be a big paradigm shift for many (but not all).

There is no Bigfoot. But there is a God or ETs.

You seem unwilling to accept that as a future reality.

 

[RedRatSnake]

Translation: You won't answer because you can't answer.

Undocumented primate DNA comes from an undocumented primate. It cannot come from anything else.

Like all things BF, it is just more bogus info. I stand by what I said. There is no Bigfoot. Junk Science

 

[MikeG]

And so what did all of the NDA's mean if she absolutely could not discuss her findings before publishing in a peer reviewed journal?

You're asking the wrong person Jodie! I know nothing......

 

[River]

When this fails, what will the hard core footers hold onto? The Sykes study? Sykes won't be publishing bigfoot DNA, and neither has Ketchum. The rules of taxonomy do not change for bigfoot. If you want to catalog a new species, follow the protocol and do it. All of this is just another hoax, and a wishful interpretation by the footers.

 

[Muldur]

the skeptics are not the issue. The issue is, THERE IS NO PROOF. There is no body

Proof?

no fossils, no hides, no skulls, no bones,

Proof?

there is no DNA,

Then what, exactly are Ketchum and Sykes analyzing?

there is no photograph.

Plenty of those, you simply don't accept them. Convenient for you, if disingenuous.

the only reasonable conclusion: There is no bigfoot.

Tracks with identifiable biometrics that map to a statistically normal distribution of size, forensically identified hairs, photographs and films, and many many eyewitness accounts across literally centuries, going all the way back to pre-discovery America say otherwise.

 

[Jodie]

Have I missed something important in all this exciting news: why is there an assumption that the Ketchum report is going to be revealed in a Russian journal? Others have remarked on this, but I must have missed the reference.

Also, I wonder if this is timed to preempt the Oxford paper, and wonder if the Oxford paper will indirectly support the Ketchum report, or refute it. Well, I really don't wonder too much.

According to Igor's statement on Cryptomundo.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoologists/bigfoot-dna-update-thefallout-andsummary/

 

[Muldur]

Let me answer the question, based on what very little we know about Dr. Ketchum's work, Stubstad alluded to looking at SNP's on the genome. If you care to do a little reading you would realize that every single living organism on earth has unique mutations along the SNP's and this is not a method used for identifying a species. If this in fact what she did, then her conclusions are erroneous. Do you know what methods she used to be able to defend her work? If so we would be happy to have you enlighten us.

No, I don't know, but if you'd bothered to read her release, she has at least 3 complete sets of DNA, and the results were confirmed by multiple independent laboratories.

 

[Muldur]

Do you see a hint of an extraterrestrial father for Bigfoot in the press release? Or is it just my imagination?

I can't say "extraterrestrial", but certainly something odd, given what she said about "novel" DNA...we'll have to wait for the paper to be sure.

Explain to me how that is done in detail Mulder, what are they specifically looking at? Do you know?

Once again, I ask you, what are geneticists looking at to determine whether something belongs in the primate family? Do you know?

I know what the general process is (not being a geneticist). You sequence the DNA you want to study, then you compare it to other sequenced DNA samples and see which genes and markers they share and which they don't. From that you can determine what sort of critter the study sample came from.

If your study sample does not match any sample on file, then you have a critter that is genetically distinct from any other known critter.

In this case, said critter is running around the wilds of N America where there is not supposed to BE any undocumented primates whatsoever.

I would call that exciting news, not looking for reasons to dismiss it.

 

[River]

Translation: You won't answer because you can't answer.

Undocumented primate DNA comes from an undocumented primate. It cannot come from anything else.

You could be interpreting that in a way that leads to wishful speculation. That statement could also mean human not in genbank. It could mean something like a small tribe of a remote village. (not currently in gen bank) It could also mean something like contaminated samples. Without seeing the actual paper, you seem to be reading a lot into this = sasquatch DNA. I'd call that wishful thinking.

Without those results/paper and without the samples being shared and tested with duplicated results, provenance for the samples etc.. you're just guessing.

I can tell you what it isn't though. It isn't bigfoot, because it does not exist.

 

[Muldur]

The choices are few and you refuse to face them.

If we get DNA from a creature that doesn't exist then we have to look at supernatural.

If we have DNA, we have proof that the creature DOES exist. That's the whole point.

There is no Bigfoot. But there is a God or ETs.

You seem unwilling to accept that as a future reality.

???

Like all things BF, it is just more bogus info. I stand by what I said. There is no Bigfoot. Junk Science

So DNA is "junk science"...wow...

 

[Sonny2]

Proof?

Tracks with identifiable biometrics that map to a statistically normal distribution of size, forensically identified hairs, photographs and films, and many many eyewitness accounts across literally centuries, going all the way back to pre-discovery America say otherwise.

Proof only to those with no standards.

Forensically identified hairs? What does that mean, that some foresic guy said they were indeed hairs?

Films and photos of blobsquatches?

Tracks hoaxed by those who are smart enough to make them within acceptable parameters?

Eyewitnesses who can never get a photo or anything that can show they weren't lying or mis-IDing something?

C'mon, Muldur, your so-called proofs are just flailings at hope. Which is what this Ketchum stuff will end up also being.

 

[River]

Proof?



Proof?


Then what, exactly are Ketchum and Sykes analyzing?



Plenty of those, you simply don't accept them. Convenient for you, if disingenuous.



Tracks with identifiable biometrics that map to a statistically normal distribution of size, forensically identified hairs, photographs and films, and many many eyewitness accounts across literally centuries, going all the way back to pre-discovery America say otherwise.

I'm sure you'll be announcing that bigfoot body discovery and cataloging any day now. If you say the DNA has to come from something, we'll be waiting for that something. Show us what it comes from muldur. LOL

*crickets*

 

[RedRatSnake]

Tracks with identifiable biometrics that map to a statistically normal distribution of t, forensically identified hairs, photographs and films, and many many eyewitness accounts across literally centuries, going all the way back to pre-discovery America say otherwise.

And still no body.

 

[jerrywayne]

According to Igor's statement on Cryptomundo.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoologists/bigfoot-dna-update-thefallout-andsummary/

Still don't see anything about a Ruskie journal.

 

[Jodie]

No, I don't know, but if you'd bothered to read her release, she has at least 3 complete sets of DNA, and the results were confirmed by multiple independent laboratories.

How can you evaluate that what she says is reasonable sounding if you don't know?

Are the genomes in GenBank? They should be if that was actually done, and done properly using appropriate protocols.

Do you have the names of the laboratories? No, just her word that this is what happened.

How is this not junk science? I can go on a blog and tell people I sequenced sasquatch DNA too and Dr. Ketchum and I would be on the same playing field with that claim.

 

[DennyT]

Wow, has this elusive paper finally been published? Hmm, interesting...Let's see;

http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.htm


...still under peer-review?

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/11/igor-burtsev-i-dont-want-new-discovery.html


...they refuse to publish the paper??

So, what's new exactly except from some internet blah blah?

Something stinks. This press release is EXACTLY what you don't do when your paper is in peer review.

 

[Muldur]

You could be interpreting that in a way that leads to wishful speculation. That statement could also mean human not in genbank. It could mean something like a small tribe of a remote village. (not currently in gen bank)

No, all those would show up as purely modern human in both mtDNA AND nuDNA. The results claimed show that the nuDNA is decidedly NOT H Sapiens Sapiens (that is, modern man, ie "us").

It could also mean something like contaminated samples.

Which is why they went with multiple labs, to cross check the results.

I can tell you what it isn't though. It isn't bigfoot, because it does not exist.

Ah, classic circular logic and a priori reasoning at it's crudest: BF does not exist, therefore no DNA sample can come from BF.