Bigfoot DNA

[RedRatSnake]

I seriously think the hierarchy footers were much better off just looking for the giant 8' tall 500 pound ape man then going the way of looking for a microscopic piece of him, it's looking amazingly stupid when they can't even locate such a large specimen that is said to inhabit the entire US and resort to fabricating such lies and mocking real science.

 

[AttorneyTom]

or is it more likely that there is some other explanation for her site disappearing?

She'll probably just use Facebook...no monthly charges.

Hey, It is cheap to believe in BF but the overhead is a killer !?

 

[RedRatSnake]

Looks like Melba is getting thrown under the bus or the truth is coming out, could be other stuff also.


Melba Ketchum - Claims, rumors, secrets and the possible fall of her Bigfoot DNA empire? WTF! (Part 1) (Update: Bart Cutino clarifies)

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/melba-ketchum-claims-rumors-secrets-and.html

 

[AttorneyTom]

No really a bus.. more like tossed. Not really newsworthy really except to the squatchers ?!

By the way. That link has an issue.. made my antivirus software interested in it.

 

[DennyT]

Looks like Melba is getting thrown under the bus or the truth is coming out, could be other stuff also.


Melba Ketchum - Claims, rumors, secrets and the possible fall of her Bigfoot DNA empire? WTF! (Part 1) (Update: Bart Cutino clarifies)

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/melba-ketchum-claims-rumors-secrets-and.html

Hypothetically, if there is a person who threatens to sue a cancer victim in a dubious case over a 75 dollar misunderstanding, that person might well be...well,...impaired. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Now what I was wondering about is the story of Ketchum marketing bigfoot tshirts? is that true? will that be at the same table with Meldrum selling books?

 

[Jodie]

Yep, it's called Authentic Sasquatch Wildwear. It is very true. She threatened to sue Alex over a 75 dollar copyright fee on a design that wasn't hers to begin with. It's not impaired, it's called being a _______ _____ _______.

 

[DennyT]

From Tyler Huggins, one of the two guys who paid for DNA analysis of the "Sierra steak" by other labs, to check on what Ketchum is claiming (and found different results):

Well, I know that Melba and her major financial back have both told me the bills have run up over $400k.
My bill for a much less challenging undertaking, was $7200.

damn, that could have paid for the blimp!!!

 

[RedRatSnake]

Sounds like Tyler H is not very convinced about the currant work or samples, how many tests do you figure are going to be needed.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/35627-release-of-forensic-dna-results-for-sierra-kills-sample/page__st__990#entry684961

now that we are more informed about what to do and what not to do, I could see any future testing efforts getting streamlined

 

[GT/CS]

But, but, but the 'footers keep telling us there's no money in bigfootery!!!

 

[AttorneyTom]

Testing for what ??

 

[DennyT]

Sounds like Tyler H is not very convinced about the currant work or samples, how many tests do you figure are going to be needed.
...

Ben Radford made a statement recently that seems accurate:

"If the data are good and the science is sound, any reputable science journal would jump at the chance to be the first to publish this groundbreaking information," Radford, the deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, wrote in LiveScience.com.

Radford suggests that if the mitochondrial DNA is identical to Homo sapiens (modern humans), it could mean one of two things.

"The first, endorsed by Ketchum, is that Bigfoot ancestors had sex with women about 15,000 years ago and created a half-human hybrid species currently hiding across North America.

"There is, however, another, simpler interpretation of such results: The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was -- Bigfoot, bear, human or something else -- it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough," Radford wrote.

In LiveScience.com, Radford pointed out that since "There is no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it with, by definition, there cannot be a conclusive match."

There is, however, a reference sample for Justin Smeja. If Ketchum would be so kind (and ethical) as to simply tell Mr. Smeja et al what lab sequenced the "Sierra Steak" nuDNA, and arrange for payment, then Mr. Smeja could submit a sample of his DNA to that lab directly for comparison with the supposed bigfoot/hybrid/whatever nuDNA sequences.

 

[River]

parn I think Ketchum has stated she already had a sample from Smeja for control purposes to check for contamination. I could be mistaken, I've been super busy as of late.

 

[DennyT]

a poster at BFF has a reasonably good analogy to the current Ketching grasping-at- straws -variations in human nuDNA; this isn't perfect, but it may illustrate a point:
if you look at something as common as a five dollar bill under a high-powered microscope, you probably won't recognize what you see as a five dollar bill. That is, only if you happen to be focused on a recognizable part of a "5" or a "Five" would you know.

That is the case with sequencing human nuDNA: everyone's has unique sequences if you look "base by base" at the entire genome, including those sequences which are not looked at very often or reported to Genbank, because they seem to have no coding function.

Not many humans have their DNA sequences in Genbank or online databases, and even those who do, it is usually for the "interesting" areas, ie those which code for proteins or/and are involved in disease/risk. This is far less than half of the genome, which is some 3 billion base pairs.

What Ketchum is essentially doing, to extend the analogy, is to take a five dollar bill, put it under a microscope, move the bill around under the lens until she gets to a part that is not recognizable as a five dollar bill, and say, "Eureka! an unknown currency/Bigfoot!"

Not to say that she is necessarily being deceitful. One would think, however, that the error in her criterion would have been pointed out to her, if she has in fact submitted her paper to a good scientific journal.

Now, she has a good opportunity to test her criterion. She/her reference labs found 'unknown' sequences in primate nuDNA in the Sierra Steak handled by a known human, Justin Smeja, but, surprisingly, according to Mr. Smeja, failed to compare it with Mr. Smeja's nuDNA. Other labs using other tests, have found the only "primate DNA" in the Sierra Steak to be that of Justin Smeja. So, Dr. Ketchum, your reference lab must sequence Mr. Smeja's nuDNA and see if it matches the results of your "unknown."

And since Dr. Ketchum no longer has a lab, and just to be sure there is no deception, Dr. Ketchum shouldn't handle the Smeja DNA...it should be sent directly to the lab that sequenced the Sierra Steak sample for Ketchum.

 

[Jodie]

Oh that would be too easy and less dramatic Parn.

 

[GT/CS]

Excellent point Jodie.

As we all know bigfootery isn't about finding the truth, it's about keeping the myth alive to make money and/or fame.

 

[DennyT]

parn I think Ketchum has stated she already had a sample from Smeja for control purposes to check for contamination. I could be mistaken, I've been super busy as of late.

perhaps you could find us a link to that.

 

[River]

perhaps you could find us a link to that.

Sure thing. Straight from Ketchums lips from one of her interviews. (around 3:33)

"This is something that the main critics will say, 'Oh, well the samples must have been contaminated -- they're contaminated with humans.' But they're not. We were able to absolutely prove that," Ketchum said. "We ran them against the profiles of the submitters and the lab personnel so we knew that we had pure samples."

 

[River]

BTW, I've heard two other interview where she mentioned having control samples for the submitters, however in one coast to coast interview I found on youtube she did say she had them for "most" of the samples used. In the one I previously linked, she did not specify that. (although I think her claims are bogus regardless of if she's even collected submitters DNA. Smeja has said no? (according to Curtino?) Every time I listen to Ketchums interview, she just sounds like shes lying. How skeptical is that? hahaha. But seriously, she does not sound like someone speaking honestly for whatever reasons to me.

 

[Jodie]

They would need Smeja's wife's sample too. She was the one that packed the sample up and mailed it to Melba. From what I heard, neither was asked for their own samples to rule out contamination.

 

[HarryHenderson]

BTW, I've heard two other interview where she mentioned having control samples for the submitters, however in one coast to coast interview I found on youtube she did say she had them for "most" of the samples used. In the one I previously linked, she did not specify that. (although I think her claims are bogus regardless of if she's even collected submitters DNA. Smeja has said no? (according to Curtino?) Every time I listen to Ketchums interview, she just sounds like shes lying. How skeptical is that? hahaha. But seriously, she does not sound like someone speaking honestly for whatever reasons to me.

I accidentally caught her Coast to Coast interview when broadcast a few weeks ago and I second, third and 69 the notion she wasn't being totally...candid. No doubt whatsoever she wasn't. Then again, in what she's trying to pull off (a fast one), how could she be?! I also don't think her sophistication in the actual nitty gritty 'science' of it all is everything it could or should be. She seemed less schooled in it than, both, her many supposed years in the DNA business would indicate, and Paranssus. Who seems quite edumacated in it. Which gave me pause to consider she really doesn't have a clue as to her real 'DNA science' ignorance. Knows just enough to be dangerous syndrome. Hey, it works on puppies.

The bottom line (for me) in this whole Ketchum Debacle 2013™ is I have enough faith in western science (in this case¹) to never allow this type of absurd, wishful pseudo-science to become even an iota more than it really is, a bored housewife's divorcee's veterinarian's wet dream.

Now the Russians? Who knows!


¹ although not necessarily in all cases.