• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shrike said:
Not to sound like a fanboi or anything, but parnassus seems to me to have been accurate in his suppositions about this debacle since the very first time I read the name "Melba Ketchum."
Click to expand...

And I'll pat him on the back once there is any evidence to support what he says. I'm surprised that you, Sas (Shrike) would not wait for the publication prior to deciding who had analysed it properly.

There is an awful lot of jumping the gun going on, on both sides of the discussion.

Mike
 
parnassus said:
Excellent post cal.
If one listens to that halloween 2010 internet radio interview by Ketchum, it seems pretty clear that she believed that if sequences weren't in online databases they weren't from a human. I am mobile right now but will try to get that link posted later today. I think that is the key to what she has reportedly called "angel DNA;" it's just human DNA that isn't in the databases.
Click to expand...
And apparently Palluides, her mentor, last night made a statement on national radio that they had compared their sequence to billions in the data base - billions of what? certianly not gemomes - there are not even millions of those. let alone billions. he has no idea what a genome is, and even more clueless about whatgenbank is and is not. he must have spread his ignorance to the Melbaites!
 
Melba Ketchum announces Bigfoot DNA results.

From Doubtful News
From the press release:
A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch,” living in North America. Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.
The study was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum of Nacogdoches, TX. In response to recent interest in the study, Dr. Ketchum can confirm that her team has sequenced 3 complete Sasquatch nuclear genomes and determined the species is a human hybrid:
“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.
More: http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/11/melba-ketchum-announces-bigfoot-dna-results-without-the-data/
​
 
'Doubtful' news is right. Why would a DNA study take 5 years? Spilled the beans before publishing suggests the usual pretend there is evidence claim. Also, Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo but other DNA isn't? That's unlikely. And a hybrid? This is so full of red flags it's laughable.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
It really sounds exactly like what calwaterbear explained in his post above.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8797418&postcount=2889
Click to expand...

Yes, it does:
Paulides said, ... part of the DNA is "nowhere in the billions of documented DNA ever seen."
Click to expand...

His ?estimate of the ?number of individuals in the accessible databases is off by several orders of magnitude. There are billions of people in the world, but only a tiny fraction have had their entire DNA sequenced...my wife knows one person. I bet no one reading this knows any. The last I looked there were only 5 million human sequences in GenBank, and these average only 1.6 million base pairs.
 
Last edited:
I should have listened to Parn when this all first started. Although we don't have the details, if we ever will, his theory has always made the most sense. Parn if you know the show I'll look it up in archive, I had not heard and don't recall Melba saying she thought that GenBank had more representation of human DNA than it actually does.
 
I'm not sure what you're referring to, Mike. There's no gun-jumping because there's nothing new here. Ketchum's statement is that bigfoots are humans, but they're the product of Homo sapiens hybridizing with something else. That's what Ketchum's camp has been saying/hinting at all along, and it's something parnassus predicted in advance of those statements.
 
MikeG said:
And I'll pat him on the back once there is any evidence to support what he says. I'm surprised that you, Sas (Shrike) would not wait for the publication prior to deciding who had analysed it properly.

There is an awful lot of jumping the gun going on, on both sides of the discussion.

Mike
Click to expand...

What Publication are we going to be waiting on ? The way it is looking :eye-poppi The only place you are going to see any publication in on. June 2, 2013 at the Colorado Convention Center. It's called " Comic Con "
 
Thanks for the explanations, and links.

On Coast to Coast George Knapp made reference to a legally binding non-disclosure agreement that had to be signed by anyone involved in the project. He said that there were some internal leaks and that this is where the reference to angel or alien DNA had come from. He said that they officially released some information to counter the leaked misinformation. Both him and the guest were disappointed at this bogus information getting out and believed it was done deliberately in order to discredit the research before it was even released.

They also spoke about how the research had discovered some new method of DNA testing that allows them to distinguish between bigfoot and human hair. Previously all the tests would come back human but this new method allows them to see the differences between bigfoot and human. Is there any indication of what they might be talking about here? Is this sort of discovery even scientifically possible? Like I said, I have no background in biology...
 
Sonny2 said:
She disappears and resurfaces, having lost her property, and her DNA testing lab (which specializes in animal pedigree testing) is frequently turned into the BBB for fraud.
Click to expand...
Say what? Can you link to information about this?

~~ Paul
 
Jodie said:
...Parn if you know the show I'll look it up in archive, I had not heard and don't recall Melba saying she thought that GenBank had more representation of human DNA than it actually does.
Click to expand...

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/11/david-paulides-and-dr-melba-ketchums.html
[Ketchum was] asked about the Destination Truth sample, how it didn't match any known primate or anything in the large database she checked.
[Ketchum answers] "Not exactly.
That's not exactly what I said. Things got... kind of 'spliced'. [laughs] Basically, we did get some differences that didn't blast in Genbank. They were very subtle differences but there were a couple of bases difference that what would normally blast in GenBank."
...
Dr. Ketchum is asked whether or not she has compared Neanderthal DNA to what she has.

[answer] "Of course we have. We've compared it to everything that we have. If we have access to it, it's been compared to it."
Click to expand...
 
If the speculation is to be believed, then we are talking about a yet-to-be discovered ancient hominid mating with a homo-sapien and producing a hybridized offspring. How convenient. Not only do you have unidentified DNA, you can trace it back to a yet-to-be discovered ancient hominid. Unfortunately, none of this passes the Occam's razor test. You should not have to invent a completely undiscovered species of homo-sapien, fathered from a yet-to-be discovered ancient hominid to explain a genetic discrepancy. That's lunacy. If again the speculation is true, and the Hokum camp has identified a marker that can not be correlated with current human samples in Genbank, then the only conclusion you can reach reasonably is that the anomalous DNA is from a HUMAN who has a marker not yet cataloged in Genbank. You cannot extrapolate that into Bigfoot, because you have no type specimen to compare the anomalous DNA against. Until you have the type specimen to compare the samples against all you have is unusual HUMAN DNA. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Show me a body, and then we will talk.
 
15,000 years? Do you realize how recent this is in human history? Neanderthals are unknown any more recently than 30,000 years ago and looked more like modern humans than not. What hominid would have existed as recently as 15,000 years that could cross with modern humans to produce anything that looks like big foot is supposed to look like? Also I think that a cross that recent would almost certainly show evidence of the non-human hominid DNA in both mitochondrial AND nuclear genomes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom