Bigfoot DNA

[Jodie]

Still don't see anything about a Ruskie journal.

I know I read it somewhere, I'll find it, but I believe it came from Igor.

I know Parn, the NDA's must be null and void now since that was the main excuse for not talking given for nearly two years now. I think it got rejected, assuming was anything ever submitted to begin with.

 

[Sonny2]

Muldur, I would LOVE for BF to exist. I would gladly eat crow. I like mysteries with the best of them.

But I'm not holdng my breath on this one.

 

[jhunter1163]

Wasn't the Hovey photo identified as a suit by the suit's maker?

 

[Muldur]

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

I don't need to have a degree in genetics to understand the basic process, Jodie.

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

Jodie, you're smarter than this. The genomes would not be in GenBank if they were from a previously Uncatalogued species.

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

And your proof she is lying is?

How is this not junk science?

Now YOU are calling DNA "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.

If you were the head of a laboratory, or an individual geneticist doing such work why would I not accept that you were doing a study w/o any evidence to dispute your statement?

Do you also accuse Dr Sykes of doing "junk science", or lying about conducting a study of his own?

Somehow I suspect not. The only reason you are trashing Ketchum is because she has taken a pro-BF position.

 

[jerrywayne]

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").



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



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

Muldur,

Do you think this will prove to be the BIG DENOUEMENT in the sasquatch saga, or too early to tell?

And would you call what you saw (presumedly Bigfoot) a human?

 

[StankApe]

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").



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



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

and they probably just asked the lab to run the sequence and they got the same result. Modern human, from some guy Eddie down the street. They are promoting it as Bigfoot DNA. But it's human DNA.... why is this so hard to figure out?

It's a regular person's DNA. The method they are using is an attempt to do an end around and fool footers into giving them money. It didn't fool REAL SCIENTISTS so it got rejected. It will be in some rag journal and be exposed as malarky once an actual scientists takes a look at it.


Bigfoot isn't real. Bigfoot promoters are liars, hoaxers,scoundrels and con artists.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Castro]

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

A veterinarian claiming on the internet that she has "the DNA" doesn't mean that we have "the DNA". I'm sure you understand that.

 

[StankApe]

No we are trashing Ketchum because she is a con artist or has no clue what she's doing. he paper has been rejected by legit journals and hence it's crap. You will take the position that it's a conspiracy by mainstream science. Yet give no actual reason for why they woul do this.

Seriously, why would a mainstream journal reject a groundbreaking paper like "proving Bigfoot"? They would probably sell 10X as many copies as a normal week. It would be a boon to their revenue.


She has regular person DNA , she got convinced by some chicanery by Stubstadt that since this individual person's DNA wasn't in GenBank that it must be Bigfoot. (or she was in on it from the beginning and is peddling snake oil)

Why do we trust Sykes? Because he doesn't have any confirmation bias and/or agenda to twist his results to fit his liking. He's going to either say "known animal" or "unknown animal" he isn't going to say "GOT A BIGFOOT HERE, HOT CROSSED BIGFOOTS!"

that's science. saying "evolution isn't real and i will prove it no matter how I twist the data" isn't science, nor is saying "my cousin Wilbur's DNA isn't in GenBank, he must be a sasquatch"

 

[River]

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").



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



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

All you have is a lot of claims, and a lot of unsubstantiated garbage at this point. The hand waving isn't making the "paper" or results = bigfoot. All of the posts in the world on the internet are not going to make it any more real.

Basically, prove your assertions. If you can't, ask yourself why you can't. You seem to be claiming some DNA results are attributed to bigfoot. Show the provenance. What did the sample come from? How do you know?

Your methodology of believing bigfoot, because you'd like for it to be real will not influence the real science world. Basically, this is going to end like all other bigfoot claims. Are you willing to "eat crow" ? haha

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[calwaterbear]

In my humble opinion - show me the sequence! Don't tell me what the book says, Let me read it myself! If this is a true accurate scientific study, that sequence will be made available to any and all scientists who would like to analyse various pieces of the sequence. Any attempt to hide or not make the genome readily available, immediately, disqualifies it from any actual findings or conclusions!
Thats the way we do science ladies and gentlemen. We don't rely on she said he said - we always politely ask one thing - show me the data! when this data is provided, I will be very interested in looking at it from many different points of view.

Additionally, their whole conclusion rests on the methods they used to determine the "uniqueness" of the sequence! You can't just look at 3 billion base pairs and declare it "yup looks unique to me!".

so we really need to get availability to the sequence, and see their methodology laid out publically, before we can make any sort of scientific judgement on the declaration of Highbrid species!

Sorry, but at this point the ball is still in Ketchums court: releasing a press release is not how we declare new species!
CWB

 

[Sonny2]

The infighting has already begun in earnest, with footers berating Ketchum for calling BF human:

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/11/calling-sasquatch-animal-is-not-insult.html#moretop

Really Dr. Ketchum? Forcing the HUMAN aspect on these animals or calling them indigenous natives is going to get you nowhere with protection laws. There are already tons of laws on the books to protect HUMANS.

This type of Pseudo Science has been the issue with this study from the beginning. If a scientist crossed a chimp with a human and succeeded would that animal be human? Of course it would not be. Plain and simple truth of the matter is regardless of what you THINK happened they are still a separate species and need to be classified as such.

etc etc

 

[clayflingythingy]

She has regular person DNA , she got convinced by some chicanery by Stubstadt that since this individual person's DNA wasn't in GenBank that it must be Bigfoot. (or she was in on it from the beginning and is peddling snake oil)

AFAIF there is no evidence that any DNA sequencing was completed either by TheMelba or any other lab. There is no evidence that a paper was actually written and submitted to any journal.

This is/was a con from the beginning in all liklihood, folks.

 

[mikeyx]

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.

After making biblical references to them, as niffimers, and that among other things kills any cred she ever had, (Shes a veterinarian for example), but you just keep going on buying into the culty nonsense..... whateverrrrrrr.

 

[mikeyx]

Wasn't the Hovey photo identified as a suit by the suit's maker?

The hovey photo was a 5 year old photo, maybe 4, that was sent to her, biscardi and a third researcher, two of whom felt it was bunk. It is a photo of someone in a suit, what suit doesn't matter, it's a fake regardless. Thus irrelevant.

 

[Sonny2]

so we really need to get availability to the sequence, and see their methodology laid out publically, before we can make any sort of scientific judgement on the declaration of Highbrid species!

Sorry, but at this point the ball is still in Ketchums court: releasing a press release is not how we declare new species!
CWB

^^^ this ^^^

 

[StankApe]

Muldur;

Calwaterbear is an actual DNA scientist and he finds this fishy.

Do you dismiss his opinion on the validity of her methods so far? Do you dismiss his prior statements (that just verified what we have all been saying for a long time) that the entire nature of this "paper" was out of whack with any publication attempt he was familiar with?

If so, why? Is it because he is not a blind believer to Bigfoot but simply asks to see the data? (which,as he stated, should be available)

 

[Resume]

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").

Yes, claims. Like the ones where she asserts observing groups of footies cavorting about.

All unevidenced claims.

If she produces objective evidence, skeptics will say "Hey look, Bigfoot."

When she doesn't, will you say "Hey look, a **********."

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10.

 

[Jodie]

I don't need to have a degree in genetics to understand the basic process, Jodie.

But you obviously don't understand, that is the point I am trying to get across to you. You have been beating the same drum for two years without ever trying to educate yourself about how new species are truly identified.

Jodie, you're smarter than this. The genomes would not be in GenBank if they were from a previously Uncatalogued species.

I am smart enough to realize that newly sequenced genomes would be submitted to GenBank if they truly existed and were verified to be authentic.You are too Mulder.

And your proof she is lying is?

Her behavior is unorthodox if she truly has something unique. The three ring circus would not be necessary.

Now YOU are calling DNA "junk science"...

You are deliberately misreading that to say what you want it to say. You are supporting junk science by not requiring the necessary verification before you declare someone successful based on their own hearsay.

If you were the head of a laboratory, or an individual geneticist doing such work why would I not accept that you were doing a study w/o any evidence to dispute your statement?

When someone uses the "NDA" excuse as many times as she did to absolve herself from explaining anything, then suddenly begins to talk about her results while claiming the article is still in peer review.....Those are two contradictory statements and it indicates lying to me. Can you explain why she would discuss results while still under an embargo from a reputable journal? Either it is out of peer review, in which case why would she bother to publish a white paper in a russian magazine with her article pending in a peer reviewed journal? Or it was rejected during the peer review process and she could find no other publisher.

Do you also accuse Dr Sykes of doing "junk science", or lying about conducting a study of his own?

It is junk science when you have to present your findings in the manner that Dr. Ketchum has chosen to proceed.[/QUOTE]

Somehow I suspect not. The only reason you are trashing Ketchum is because she has taken a pro-BF position.

I have no respect for con games and those that refuse to see the truth of the matter based upon their own wishful thinking regardless of whether bigfoot exists or not.

 

[RedRatSnake]

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

I am not calling DNA junk science, That would be stupid don't ya think ? I am calling her Melba Ketchum findings on this BF DNA the Junk Science, for many reasons all have been posted here.

Looks to me that since a real BF cannot be found one has to be made one way or another, but this will not work cause the hoax is coming to an end.

 

[jerrywayne]

What is it?

Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primates species. A hybrid, mating of human with unknown hominin.

Hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual.

While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there is also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences -- a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence.

If we take these comments at face value, the best interpretation would be a human mated with either a hominin itself unknown to science, or a hominin that should have not existed contemporaneously with modern humans.

So, a mystery will explain a mystery?