Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jodie said:
Wally lost $500,000 by all accounts, for something that should have only cost $65,000 at the most, what is he going to sue her for? It could have ended either way and she still technically fullfilled her obligation.
Click to expand...

My guess is that she is making a mockery of this DNA and the lab she is suppose to be running, people paid for legit science and they are getting in return an obvious scam.

Tim :)
 
I agree with you, if I had sincerely believed that I had bigfoot evidence and then someone took that and ran with it to make money, lying instead of telling me the truth I probably didn't want to hear, I'ld be furious.

Maybe that's why she did what she did, it was a "no win" situation, she needed money so why not take advantage of the situation?
 
picture.php

fig 16 from Ketchum's paper

picture.php

Junior (an Otolemur garnettii aka "bush baby") and Helen (a Homo sapiens).

As if I needed to add anything:
Leonid Kruglyak, a Princeton University geneticist:

“To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid. Instead, analyses either come back as 100% human, or fail in ways that suggest technical artifacts. They make the bizarre claim that the failures might be caused by novel, nonstandard structure of the DNA (“Electron micrographs of the DNA revealed unusual double strand – single strand – double strand transitions which may have contributed to the failure to amplify during PCR.”) which would mean this DNA was different from DNA in all other known species. There’s also the strange statement they couldn’t deposit sequences in GenBank because it’s a new/unknown taxon — GenBank does that no problem.”

“The tree in Fig 16 is inconsistent with known primate phylogeny and generally makes no sense.”
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks this paper was approved by a meaningful peer review process, please step forward.
 
Last edited:
I like how there's three seperate species of Humans and three seperate species of Gorilla Gorilla Gorilla.
 
Mister Earl said:
I like how there's three seperate species of Humans and three seperate species of Gorilla Gorilla Gorilla.
Click to expand...
earl,
the only possible explanation of this - shall i call it mysterious tree, is that these are for individual humans or gorrillas, or bush babies. noteably missing from this are any mention of chimpanzee. Also if it is read in typical Clade fashion, then Gorrillas split off from humans to become their own species.

thats the problem, the discription in the paper in no way matches the diagram, and their is no legend , None of this is acceptable in any way in any legitimate scientific journal.
CWB
 
Where is the evidence that this was ever passed by a real, qualified peer review committee? Did Ketchum claim to have such evidence? I mean, that was the supposed reason behind her supposed purchase. Where is this evidence?
 
parnassus said:
Where is the evidence that this was ever passed by a real, qualified peer review committee? Did Ketchum claim to have such evidence? I mean, that was the supposed reason behind her supposed purchase. Where is this evidence?
Click to expand...

Ketchum has claimed to have evidence of the peer review process, the acceptance and then denial of publication, and of her purchase of said journal.
"documentation of all of this" is the wording she used!

unfortunately, the claim of having this evidence is viewed as proof of the claim,for many over in Bigfoot world. No need to ever actually produce any evidence, just claim that you have it.

makes sense though, they all claim to know BF exists, and for them, thats enough to "know"
CWB
Melba, show us the documentation you claim to have! how about the name of the previous editor of the journal you bought? or the names of those "known experts" currently reviewing your work!
(when we do real science, that review has a special name: we call it "peer Review")
 
calwaterbear said:
Ketchum has claimed to have evidence of the peer review process, the acceptance and then denial of publication, and of her purchase of said journal.
"documentation of all of this" is the wording she used!

unfortunately, the claim of having this evidence is viewed as proof of the claim,for many over in Bigfoot world. No need to ever actually produce any evidence, just claim that you have it.

makes sense though, they all claim to know BF exists, and for them, thats enough to "know"
CWB
Melba, show us the documentation you claim to have! how about the name of the previous editor of the journal you bought? or the names of those "known experts" currently reviewing your work!
(when we do real science, that review has a special name: we call it "peer Review")
Click to expand...

for those who know no proof is needed for those who don't no proof is enough.:)
 
picture.php

fig 16 from Ketchum's paper

Let me just say this about that:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is the most indecipherable and incompetent attempt at a hominid phylogenetic tree I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. Homo sapiens branched off twice before the split from gorillini and hominini occurred? Then it happened again after the split? Gorillini has three species of gorilla, all with the same sub-species trinomen? There is another branch of gorillini that leads to... some unnamed species? A lemur species developed along the hominin line, after H. sapiens and after the so-called "unknown" species? Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Here is how it should look. Feel free to insert Bigfooticus bullsh!ttii anywhere you feel the moon is not wont to shine.
 
Update: Dr. Sykes will be speaking at the Western Bigfoot Society meeting on March 9th. It seems he has some sort of update on his DNA study. Apparently his study is still in its analysis phase right now. Both him and Dr. Anna Nekaris recieved a copy of Ketchum's paper and they will give their expert views on it soon.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Update: Dr. Sykes will be speaking at the Western Bigfoot Society meeting on March 9th. It seems he has some sort of update on his DNA study. Apparently his study is still in its analysis phase right now. Both him and Dr. Anna Nekaris recieved a copy of Ketchum's paper and they will give their expert views on it soon.
Click to expand...

Source?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Update: Dr. Sykes will be speaking at the Western Bigfoot Society meeting on March 9th. It seems he has some sort of update on his DNA study. Apparently his study is still in its analysis phase right now. Both him and Dr. Anna Nekaris recieved a copy of Ketchum's paper and they will give their expert views on it soon.
Click to expand...

I sincerily hope you did the fingers-quotation-mark gesture while typing "expert".
 
I am under the impression Sykes is going to be professional with this BF DNA stuff, he is going to be held to the same standard as top notch science expects, he is being watched by many on this one, if he go's footer and comes up with the same crap as ketchum, stick a fork in him~

Tim :)
 
RedRatSnake said:
I am under the impression Sykes is going to be professional with this BF DNA stuff, he is going to be held to the same standard as top notch science expects, he is being watched by many on this one, if he go's footer and comes up with the same crap as ketchum, stick a fork in him~

Tim :)
Click to expand...

Yeah but speaking at something called the Western Bigfoot Society doesn't seem to bode well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom