Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
This guy takes his concerns about Ketchum's Tale of Two Journals to the Bigfoot Evidence site:
I've been following your blog ever since I first learned about the Ketchum study back in November. I've always had a passing interest in Bigfoot ever since I was younger, but now that I'm studying primatology, this whole fiasco has intensified my interest. I am a skeptic, but I am willing to change my mind if the evidence is compelling. I guess that is why I'm so annoyed by this thing. I've done some research on the various websites associated with her journal. I think I may have learned the sequence of events that took place before she published. It involved creating one journal with fake information to cover her tracks, and then creating another one so that she could say she bought the original one and renamed it. ... Let me know what you think:

http://www.historum.com/blogs/ghost...udy-questionable-ethics-creating-journal.html

Best regards,

Jim R. McClanahan
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jim posted this on Doubtful News first and then eventually wrote it up.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ket...eased-problems-with-questionable-publication/

Sadly, the Bigfoot blogs don't really follow mine.

Bigfoot Evidence will post anything with keywords.

Also, Robert Lindsay called me snarky (I'm doing my job :cool:) while posting news that Sykes is coming to the US for a Bigfoot conference in March. Curiously enough, I emailed Dr. Sykes on the day of the paper release. He hadn't seen a copy so couldn't comment so I gave him one. No reply yet on what he thought of it.
 
idoubtit said:
Jim posted this on Doubtful News first and then eventually wrote it up.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ket...eased-problems-with-questionable-publication/

Sadly, the Bigfoot blogs don't really follow mine.

Bigfoot Evidence will post anything with keywords.

Also, Robert Lindsay called me snarky (I'm doing my job :cool:) while posting news that Sykes is coming to the US for a Bigfoot conference in March. Curiously enough, I emailed Dr. Sykes on the day of the paper release. He hadn't seen a copy so couldn't comment so I gave him one. No reply yet on what he thought of it.
Click to expand...

yer my new hero!;)
 
idoubtit said:
Jim posted this on Doubtful News first and then eventually wrote it up.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ket...eased-problems-with-questionable-publication/

Sadly, the Bigfoot blogs don't really follow mine.

Bigfoot Evidence will post anything with keywords.

Also, Robert Lindsay called me snarky (I'm doing my job :cool:) while posting news that Sykes is coming to the US for a Bigfoot conference in March. Curiously enough, I emailed Dr. Sykes on the day of the paper release. He hadn't seen a copy so couldn't comment so I gave him one. No reply yet on what he thought of it.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see Sykes' comments should he reply. Also, one person's snark is another's critical commentary; if Lindsay wants snark, he should come here.
 
idoubtit said:
Jim posted this on Doubtful News first and then eventually wrote it up.
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ket...eased-problems-with-questionable-publication/

Sadly, the Bigfoot blogs don't really follow mine.

Bigfoot Evidence will post anything with keywords.

Also, Robert Lindsay called me snarky (I'm doing my job :cool:) while posting news that Sykes is coming to the US for a Bigfoot conference in March. Curiously enough, I emailed Dr. Sykes on the day of the paper release. He hadn't seen a copy so couldn't comment so I gave him one. No reply yet on what he thought of it.
Click to expand...

Sykes commented by canceling his appearance at the bigfoot conference.
 
I'm curious.

Ketchum states that "of the 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes sequenced, 16 diverse haplotypes were found suggesting that these hominins did not originate in a single geographic location."

She says, "in contrast, consistent, reproducible, novel data were obtained when nuclear DNA was amplified...." and "the totality of the DNA evidence suggests the Sasquatch nuclear DNA is a mosaic comprising human DNA interspersed with sequences that is novel but primate in origin."

She says "of the 16 haplotypes, most were European or Middle Eastern in origin. African and American Indian haplotypes were also observed."

What does this imply? Is the implication that a novel (unknown) primate hybridized with Europeans, Middle Easterners, Africans, and American Indians and then all these branches somehow ended up in the hinterlands of North America and called sasquatch?

Or that some of these hybrids moved here and further hybridised with our ladies of the American melting pot?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
jerrywayne said:
I'm curious.

Ketchum states that "of the 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes sequenced, 16 diverse haplotypes were found suggesting that these hominins did not originate in a single geographic location."

She says, "in contrast, consistent, reproducible, novel data were obtained when nuclear DNA was amplified...." and "the totality of the DNA evidence suggests the Sasquatch nuclear DNA is a mosaic comprising human DNA interspersed with sequences that is novel but primate in origin."

She says "of the 16 haplotypes, most were European or Middle Eastern in origin. African and American Indian haplotypes were also observed."

What does this imply? Is the implication that a novel (unknown) primate hybridized with Europeans, Middle Easterners, Africans, and American Indians and then all these branches somehow ended up in the hinterlands of North America and called sasquatch?

Or that some of these hybrids moved here and further hybridised with our ladies of the American melting pot?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be "are novel but primate in origin"?

I'm wondering if anyone actually read this paper all the way through before it was published.
 
jerrywayne said:
I'm curious.

Ketchum states that "of the 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes sequenced, 16 diverse haplotypes were found suggesting that these hominins did not originate in a single geographic location."

She says, "in contrast, consistent, reproducible, novel data were obtained when nuclear DNA was amplified...." and "the totality of the DNA evidence suggests the Sasquatch nuclear DNA is a mosaic comprising human DNA interspersed with sequences that is novel but primate in origin."

She says "of the 16 haplotypes, most were European or Middle Eastern in origin. African and American Indian haplotypes were also observed."

What does this imply? Is the implication that a novel (unknown) primate hybridized with Europeans, Middle Easterners, Africans, and American Indians and then all these branches somehow ended up in the hinterlands of North America and called sasquatch?

Or that some of these hybrids moved here and further hybridised with our ladies of the American melting pot?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

I believe the totally unevidenced Greenland Ice Bridge has been advanced as an explanation; the non Native Americans migrated over and there you have it.
 
It sounds like there must have been a lot of partying going on at one time or another!
 
jhunter1163 said:
Shouldn't that be "are novel but primate in origin"?

I'm wondering if anyone actually read this paper all the way through before it was published.
Click to expand...

Well, if that Robin Whatsherface, Ketchum's (DVM) publicist edited this paper, she'd tell you that are good grammar.
 
So the biggest nut job on the bff sent in some samples to ketchum ~

Sasfooty

Posted Today, 05:48 PM

No, not all have abandoned her, including me. I haven't said much because arguing amid the "skeptics' roar" gets tiresome, but I remain a loyal bleever.

My son & I saw the bigfoot at the tree where we found the sample that I sent her, so I have no problem believing that her findings were factual. Hopefully, she will eventually get the recognition & credit that she deserves for a job well done.
 
Resume said:
I believe the totally unevidenced Greenland Ice Bridge has been advanced as an explanation; the non Native Americans migrated over and there you have it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but African? Did the novel primate mate in Africa? Did it mate with southern American slaves?

And did the hybrid again hybridise with Native Americans?

Huh?
 
Last edited:
RedRatSnake said:
So the biggest nut job on the bff sent in some samples to ketchum ~

Sasfooty

Posted Today, 05:48 PM

No, not all have abandoned her, including me. I haven't said much because arguing amid the "skeptics' roar" gets tiresome, but I remain a loyal bleever.

My son & I saw the bigfoot at the tree where we found the sample that I sent her, so I have no problem believing that her findings were factual. Hopefully, she will eventually get the recognition & credit that she deserves for a job well done.
Click to expand...

There seem to be all sorts of trolls on the BFF. Sasfooty has been pretending to be a habituator the entire time I've been a member there :boggled:
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
There seem to be all sorts of trolls on the BFF. Sasfooty has been pretending to be a habituator the entire time I've been a member there :boggled:
Click to expand...

I get a kick out of this rule taken from the bff rules and guidelines ~ When is that going to be enforced.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative.


Tim ~ :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom