• 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.
Imho, this DNA will not prove a living "bigfoot."
she is claiming:
a) that the mtDNA is Homo sapiens sapiens
and
b) that the nuDNA comprises known Homo sapiens sapiens and also some "not in data bases"

Plus, the "biologic provenance," of these specimens, regardless of so-called "chain of custody" or what anyone rationalizes, is (charitably speaking) unknown, AT BEST.

My own idea is that this is overwhelmingly likely to be nothing more than human DNA that isn't in databanks/bases. I'll bet you a cookie that this will be the response of the scientific community (if anyone ever publishes her data). By my way of thinking, only a type specimen "bigfoot" (and its DNA) could prove anything else.
 
No DNA is good enough, it was good enough to establish the Denisovans. The difference lies in what is claimed. In this case the majority would need a type specimen because Melba and others are claiming this thing is living with us today.



They had a finger bone fragment and two teeth that the DNA was extracted from.
 
Without a type specimen the DNA is meaningless. Even "novel" DNA means nothing without a specimen. You can't prove a negative with DNA either.

Whereas the record over the last thousand years has amply attested to bigfoot as myth, and nothing in these DNA studies will change that.

The minimizer "all I am suggesting" is the means of framing an unreasonable statement as having the appearance of being reasonable.

Ignoring all the evidence we do have, and instead "waiting" on studies that can prove nothing about the existence or nonexistence is pretty unreasonable logically.
ABP, I beg to differ here. There are several features of DNA that give it added power over eyewitness, plaster casts etc. And actually we have already seen the DNA evidence shift the BF discussion in significant ways.

First, as referenced here earlier, we do use DNA to define new species . We mentioned the Denisovians, identified through a tooth, a finger bone, and DNA. We routinely use DNA to discover cryptic species. Right now as we speak, My crew islooking at splitting one known species into several, based on their DNA differences. We do this because in this case, if you look at the animals, they all look very similar, but looking at the DNA, it's clear there are several non interbreeding populations that have significant differences.

Second: Even the reported results of melbas study, even before they can be reviewed - have already changed the frame of the discussion. Based on her reports, we now have to look at this thing as a highbrid population. If her mtDNA results are accurate, that precludes any other option of what BF is. It is the DNA that moved the needle! (We can argue and doubt melba all we want, and I will, but she reports all of her samples have human mtDNA, so if thats true those data back the BFers into a corner on their varied and shifting ideas. )
And if those results are accurate BTW, Human mtDNA, it contains alot of other bits and pieces of information that are of interest to potential researchers. we can tell in an instant where the mothers of this population trace their lineage back to, what part of the world, and also get a time frame, all of that is valuable information.

third: considering the reported whole genome. This would be a gold mine of information. there is so much we can do with that, consider all of the findings and advancements that have come from using the results of the Human Genome project. I can't even give justice to what we could investigate with a the whole genome, we could look at the chromosomes, see how they match up. we could "paint " the chromosomes, which IE determines the genetic heritage of different portions of each chromosome. (see Sykes DNA-USA for a really good treatment of that process, and the information available from chromosome painting)

We are also becoming more and more capable at Phenotyping a genome. we can look at specific genes and predict what each of those genes would produce characteristic wise. so we could begin to get a good understanding of what this thing looked like. The list goes on and on.

As for a type specimen: If there were actual DNA that indicated unknown primate in North America. you can rest assured that real biologists backed by well funded organizations would jump into the search immediately. it would be like all the museums sending out dino fossil hunters in the early 1900's. It was a major competitive operation!

Valid DNA, analyzed properly, would lead to the discovery of a previously unknown North American primate in short order!

You are right, unfortunately , that DNA cannot prove a negative. however what it can do is produce the strongest yet repudiation of some of the "best" known evidence. each and every time a DNA test come back Bear, human, Yak, Cow, Llama, etc etc, it moves the needle farther and farther from plausible and closer and closer to riduculous! Normal people with reasonable deductive skills appreciate that information, it allows them to make informed judgements!
We already know what the true believers will do with this info. But i just love seeing these guys make incredible public claims, only to get shot in the butt time after time by the well performed magic of science!
CWB
 
Supposedly they have several hair samples, a steak that looks like a raw hide chew toy, a bone fragment, and the crowning piece of evidence (at least to me) a giant toe nail.

So the amount of evidence is about the same for the Denisovan except.........it's probably all human, but I am curious as to who the giant toe nail belonged to before they lost it.

As for provenance, if it is truly unique it won't matter, you'll get the DNA after removing the contaminates appropriately. There in lies the quandry, was that done? If it was, do she even understand what it is she was looking at? There is a big difference in sequencing appropriately versus interpreting the results after all of that is done if there isn't an exact match in GenBank.

A year ago Stubstad said he thought she used SNP's to decipher the nuclear DNA but that he had left the project by that point and wasn't sure. Reading the public forum, SY says the same thing and supposedly talks to her so the only conclusion I can come to, based on the gossip, is that she was pretty confident in what it was she thought she had based on the mtDNA. Then running the SNP panels on the nuclear genome for distinguishing variation within the species would have been appropriate, if your interpretation of the original mtDNA was correct to begin with. I don't think it was and haven't since Stubstad first came forward.

Stubstad told me that she had to custom design primers, and there is a protocol for that, but I'm not certain you use that in this kind of situation, I'ld have to ask the genetics clinic I deal with here locally what circumstances that applies to.
 
They had a finger bone fragment and two teeth that the DNA was extracted from.
and the Denisovan individual differed from modern humans by an average of 385 positions in the mtDNA genome. Actually, as I understand it, Ketchum has discovered that modern humans exist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/denisova.html
Where Neandertals differ from modern humans by an average of 202 positions in the mtDNA genome, the Denisovan individual differed from modern humans by an average of 385 positions. This means that the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of the Denisovan, Neandertals and modern humans lived an estimated 1,000,000 years ago (with a large error margin), about twice as old as the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of Neandertals and humans. There was speculation that the Denisovan might belong to a previously unknown species, but it was also possible that it belonged to a relic Homo erectus, or to a Neandertal that had retained an archaic mtDNA sequence, or even to a modern human.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/denisova.html
 
Cal wrote:
If her mtDNA results are accurate, that precludes any other option of what BF is.
I'm sure you really don't mean this the way it sounds.

The problem is of course that there is no proof of the source of the sample.

The mtDNA can be accurate, but if this stuff came from regular humans who simply aren't in the databases, then the bleevers, in the face of cognitive dissonance, can always abandon the present crop of samples and go to the small sample size/ "we just haven't gotten a sample of bigfoot yet" option...and move on to the next snake-oil salesman who claims to have proof.

Bigfootery will never die. The room will be full of poop, but they will keep expecting to get a pony.
 
I would add to my post the fact that Dr. Steven Novella basically agrees with my impression of what Ketchum has described.

The only intriguing aspect of the study would be the consistency of the "non-human" genes found in the paternal DNA. If different samples from different localities all possess the identical gene(s), and are not found in the data bank, this would be curious. Could mean that the data extraction was faulty, but it is said that the sequencing was farmed out and not isolated to one lab. The blind testing samples were marked "human" on delivery to the labs, so the labs would not spend time checking for animal candidates. The consistency of the maverick genes could just be a weird coincidence. Could be contamination, prior to delivery to other labs. Seems that they had isolated genes related to hair and two other gene locations. Are these "non-human?" Again, it would be the consistency of the alleged "unknown primate" genes that would be an interesting problem to solve.

I have not read Paulides' TRIBAL BIGFOOT, but southernyahoo has suggested (to my mind anyway) that it foreshadows the Ketchum paper because it has DNA test results similar to those recently announced. (I think the DNA work was done too by Ketchum.) Anyone have a copy of Paulides' book? Personally, I have thought the Paulides connection/influence was worth a look.
 
Stubstad told me that she had to custom design primers, and there is a protocol for that, but I'm not certain you use that in this kind of situation, I'd have to ask the genetics clinic I deal with here locally what circumstances that applies to.

It would be great if you would be able to find out the protocol for when custom primers should be used.
 
Cal wrote:

I'm sure you really don't mean this the way it sounds.

stuff clipped out

Bigfootery will never die. The room will be full of poop, but they will keep expecting to get a pony.

Yup Parn, very inartfully stated by me. The point I was trying to make was that DNA is a much more powerfull form of evidence than the stuff previously offered. In illustrating that, it came off as I was believing Melbas stuff, when instead I was trying to show how she had boxed herself in.

I also agree that it doesn't matter how quickly we demonstrate that melbas work is Fairy Dust wrapped in Unicorn wool, because the supposed believers have already subconsiously recognized that it will be BS, and are already proactively building the scaffolding to span the smoking crater of the "Melba self imoliation memorial" that is currently being formed, before our very eyes.

For anyone interested and willing to put in 40 minutes, the podcast LuvGodzilla posted above is an excellent interview. listening to Todd Diskotell will inform, educate and illucidate the listener as to the current state of DNA technology, as well as a whole lot of anthropology etc. Very well done piece! Alot of thec stuff he says, I tried to say in various posts, but he is much more articulate and precise!
CWB
 
Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights..." Ketchum said.

First they need to give up their practices of abducting women in order to create hybrids, illegally killing deer without a license, stealing farmers crops and pigs, killing skunks in drain pipes, peeking in windows, running across roads at night, and throwing rocks at people; and they need to get government issued photo ID. Then and only then we can talk about the right to vote, carry concealed firearms, sit with human folks, go to public schools, etc.

But seriously....
I think that the people whose DNA she has had processed already have constitutional rights. LOL.
 
Jodie,
Why would you accept that statement about primers as being true? Firstly, Stubstad: What would he know? Secondly, Ketchum... Do you have any evidence that she was doing any sequencing? I don't know of any. Her business, when she had one, was extracting and running "DNA fingerprint" sorts of stuff. She certainly was sending a lot of stuff out to bigger labs. According to some of the dozens of complaints about her service, she wasn't around the lab enough to even sign reports. She couldn't keep her staff, and couldn't even keep adequate supplies on hand. As far as I can see, the "primers" thing just a second- or third-hand story from questionable sources.

I can't say for sure that the story is false, but perhaps you are a bit credulous when it comes to her statements.

imho.
 
JW’s inquiry about Paulides’ book has now caused me to engage in a remembrance of a trek through treacle. (That’s my personal opinion.)

I must tell you I have a copy of this Paulides book, bought at the time of its original publication. But I put it into a box in storage subsequently, and have not read it since the time of acquisition. I have good reasons to have done that. There are many questionable claims, and questionable procedures used to back up those claims, in the book. I have not read it in the last year or so.


Some anecdotal examples, based on my memory. None of this stuff is based on a scientific method that I find acceptable, if any was employed to begin with.

Paulides attempts to influence the reader’s opinion by claiming that he has what I would term “good data rigidity”—that is, the eyewitness data was acquired under rigid, even legal-based, conditions. Part of the schtick is that he has all the alleged eyewitnesses sign affadavits that they indeed saw a Sasquatch—and Paulides claims that the form of these particular affadavits is that he makes the signers understand that these affadavits could be used against the eyewitnesses in a court of law if they were found to be lying. (I think I am remembering this correctly.) I must tell you that it doesn’t appear to me that that any of these could be cases that would hold up in court—a lawsuit claiming someone lied about seeing an imaginary creature….really?

He also uses in this volume (I believe now retired) a police-connected sketch artist to draw pictures of what the eyewitnesses claim that they saw. But I am bothered by this method, as nearly all the pictures in the book have a great deal of similarity—not because Sasquatches all look similar, but I was thinking that the sketch artist may have a bias that causes them to draw the pictures of these alleged creatures with very similar trends in face and body structure. What I am attempting to say is that it seems to me that the sketch artist wasn’t a disinterested bystander in these proceedings. Paulides may have had a chance to get some actual data rigidity if he had employed say, five or six different sketch artists to do the eyewitness drawings--and that after looking at all the images produced, maybe one can say that there is something to the trends seen in the pictures.

There are an additional number of things that strike me that are wrong about this volume, including the effort to “de-fur” a drawing made by the sketch artist (I think that is correct) of what is claimed by Paulides to be of the head of the alleged creature from the Patterson film from a frame of this film—and by so doing allegedly proving that the creature is a form of human. (Take the fur off, it looks like a guy on main street, USA.) And even more interestingly (not because of what Paulides claims, but due to the logic Paulides is using), the drawing shows a First Nations person—a North American Indian (or an Italian, or a South American, etc., if you ask me). From where I stand, the claimed results are not acceptable, because one could come up with an equally applicable, yet completely different conclusion. That is, rather that the head of the Patterson creature is an actual mask made by someone, therefore the mask would have human-like characteristics to begin with, since it was understood that this was to be part of a costume of a Bigfoot during its creation.)

[An aside: I dimly remember reading somewhere (anyone recall more?) that there is a claim that someone who worked on the original series of Star Trek may have been instrumental in the putting together the mask used in the Patterson film. If this can be verified, then a man-like monster with its fur in place on the mask’s face would—when the applied fur is removed—look somewhat like a human being.]

But Paulides’ theory gets even more interesting—it seems to me that the main premise of “Tribal Bigfoot” (if my memory serves) is that Sasquatches are an actual tribe of First Nations peoples, perhaps exhibiting recessive gene expression (due to isolation and close interbreeding between survivals of the tribe)—with such recessive expression including such things as being quite tall, the whole-body hirsuteness, and so on.

There are also mentions in the text about DNA being tested too. But I will leave things here.
 
Zippy,

Paulides' "just the facts ma'am" Joe Friday approach to Bigfoot research is lacking a great deal. However, he has unwittingly shown how culture driven the Bigfoot story is. His Native American eyewitnesses overwhelmingly describe large humans that look very much like very large hirsute versions of themselves. White eyewitnesses see more ape-like creatures (generally.)
And black people have enough sense not to see Bigfoot at all.

I was primarily curious about the DNA results in the book. This seems to foreshadow the Ketchum interpretation of Bigfoot DNA, as if Paulides supplied the scenario and Ketchum tried to give scientific cover to this scenario.
 
ZO,

I believe that Paulides is quite close to the truth in some ways. That is, I believe that whatever various NA myths and legends address some sort of biped, are referring to regular modern humans in an exaggerated way, as legends tend to do. Some of these modern humans were enemy tribes (who certainly did abduct women), some were white men/women, and some may just be myths and shadows and bears. In the same way, old newspaper accounts describe encounters with "wild men," who were actually men, crazy men, hermits, whatever who lived in the woods or were homeless, and tended not to see the barber on a regular basis, plus the odd black person who was branded as something we don't think is acceptable these days.

Paulides has some odd ideas, no question, and he has been led astray to some extent by Ketchum (who was led astray by Stubstad) on the DNA/hybrid thing, but his assessment of the basic data seems to me to be largely correct. Of course, the whole missing person ideas, UFO's, blah blah I can't swallow.

furthermore, Paulides is correct that all of the positive DNA results to date on primate DNA found in the woods is, in fact, modern human. Some of it is NA, some is non-NA, and this finding is not due to contamination. It is due to the fact that modern humans go in the woods, and they are the only large primate in North America, excepting escaped pets.

the sketches reflect that fact; some have remarked that they resemble Paulides, which I find hilarious. I do not at all rule out the idea that tribal people are jerking Paulides around. Been there, done that. More power to them.

Many of the bigfoot bleevers have bought/read the Missing 411 books by Paulides and ascribe the missing persons to the actions of bigfoot. I think Paulides purposely chose not to ascribe the cases to bigfoot, instead leaving it open to interpretation, because he wanted to capture both the bigfoot and the UFO markets. More power to him. LOL.

I expect that Ketchum has given up on the scholarly journal market, if she is influenced by Paulides, and is going for a book. That would make sense, given her media extravaganza.
 
I've read posts 1-600 and about 3000 to this. I'm trying to catch up but this is immense. I have some questions trying to connect all the characters. I'm gathering info for a piece to be published. The deadline looms...

Are Melba and Paulides close associates? How close? If his book copyrighted 2009 and her copyright notice for her book/movie Sasquatch: A Tribe Revealed dated 9/2010 seem to correspond to this same idea. How strongly does that suggest the results of this study were handily fit into that preconceived idea?
 
Zippy,

Paulides' "just the facts ma'am" Joe Friday approach to Bigfoot research is lacking a great deal. However, he has unwittingly shown how culture driven the Bigfoot story is. His Native American eyewitnesses overwhelmingly describe large humans that look very much like very large hirsute versions of themselves. White eyewitnesses see more ape-like creatures (generally.)
And black people have enough sense not to see Bigfoot at all.

I was primarily curious about the DNA results in the book. This seems to foreshadow the Ketchum interpretation of Bigfoot DNA, as if Paulides supplied the scenario and Ketchum tried to give scientific cover to this scenario.
That's a cunning scenario, specially for habituators who see "them" on a daily basis in their backyard: A bigfoot body? Nope, sorry, we're not murderers. He's human, Ketchum proved it. I think it's the future for bigfootery.
 
I've read a few of the missing persons cases for my area and having been on search and rescue, I can tell you there was nothing mysterious about them at all - until he found the stories and made them mysterious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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