Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Pretending? Sasfooty has a sample in Melba's study. are you implying that sample is not from a real bigfoot?

It is probably from the upside-down 2nd floor flying bigfoot she has a picture of.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
That's gold!
Click to expand...

When this melba DNA stuff started I had brought the rule up a few times and the mods jumped on my like flies on a rib roast, (mostly looser Art) that's one of the things that got me in trouble when the new bff started, I wanted to know why everyone believed in the Sierra Kills in the first place, it was and is an obvious BS story from the get go, they need to pull that "guideline" and replace it with~

"We have a tendency not to analyze any claims and we will never be skeptical like some other forums"

This DNA thing has backfired and will tank most all of footin, anyone that is left in a month or so still hanging on this should be moved to a secluded section of the forum and society.

Tim :)
 
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...

it implies that if your own hair somehow got sent in to Dr. Ketchum, and she did your mtDNA, and found it to be that of a modern human homo sapiens sapiens, you are suddenly transformed into a novel hominin, even without doing your nuDNA. It's a miracle. You have become a bigfoot, whatever your heritage...she's not prejudiced. Anyone can be a bigfoot in the land of the free.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
I've asked all over the place, and maybe even here, but haven't yet had an answer.

Does anyone know what "next generation genome sequencing" means? Why would peer reviewers need expertise in this to be able to effectively consider her paper, as MK claims?

Mike
Click to expand...

Surely someone knows the answer to this?
 
jerrywayne said:
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?
Click to expand...

From the ARS blog:

To begin with, the mitochondrial DNA of the samples (when it can be isolated) clusters with that of modern humans. That isn't itself a problem if we assume that those doing the interbreeding were human females, but the DNA sequences come from a variety of different humans—16 in total. And most of these were "European or Middle Eastern in origin" with a few "African and American Indian haplotypes." Given the timing of the interbreeding, we should only be seeing Native American sequences here. The authors speculate that some humans may have walked across the ice through Greenland during the last glaciation, but there's absolutely no evidence for that. The best explanation here is contamination.
Click to expand...
It's from the paper, though I don't remember reading that. The African fellows had a long cold walk, apparently.
 
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...


Hi guys, first post here. This portion of her paper makes zero sense but few people are talking about it. On the BFF I tried to lay out exactly how she came up with this 15kya hybridization idea---she's still clinging to Stubstad's misunderstanding of what he read on the wikipedia entry for Haplogroup H. It seems to have gone over a lot of peoples heads, but I guess that's not hard when your head is in the sand.
 
theagenes said:
Hi guys, first post here. This portion of her paper makes zero sense but few people are talking about it. On the BFF I tried to lay out exactly how she came up with this 15kya hybridization idea---she's still clinging to Stubstad's misunderstanding of what he read on the wikipedia entry for Haplogroup H. It seems to have gone over a lot of peoples heads, but I guess that's not hard when your head is in the sand.
Click to expand...

I find you posts quite informative over there. Welcome. Perhaps you could elaborate.
 
Okay, so here's what I've been piecing together. I've seen from reading old posts on the BFF that Parnassus and Jodie were discussing this with Stubstad before he died and they know a lot more about this than I do. I'm pretty late to the game, but I'm trying to reconstuct as best I can how this prehistoric hybridization idea got started.

So to start you have to go back to Richard Substad's involvement in MK's study beginning in 2009. As soon as I have enough posts I can add the link to the reports he wrote about his involvement, the early results he was privy to, and his interpretation of them. If someelse can post the link that would be great.

In the first of these he talks about his background and how he got interested in the the study. The first couple of results sounded really promising:

Within a few months, Richard made contact with Adrian Erikson, Robert Schmalzbach (“Java Bob”), Shannon Sylvia and Dr. Melba Ketchum, among others, and initiated the mitochondrial sequencing of several purported sasquatch samples through Dr. Ketchum’s DNA Diagnostics Laboratory in Texas. Much to his surprise, once again, the first two samples—submitted by two totally independent and disparate researchers and from habituation sites in two widely separated states or provinces—turned out to be intimately related to one-another, DNA-wise, making the statistical probability of two independent hoaxes or misidentifications somewhere in the 2-3 % range. Accordingly, Richard’s statistical conclusion from only having analyzed the mitochondrial (prehistoric maternal origins) sequencing of these first two samples alone is that there is a 97-98 % certainty that the sasquai indeed exist—right outside of our own back door, so to speak.
Click to expand...

But here's the problem, when you look at these two results what they actually got was human mtDNA, both from haplogroup H. Since they had already made the assumtion a priori that the samples were from two BFs separated by thousands of miles this seemed like a big deal.

So from the very beginning the study was never about "Is BF real?"; it was about "Is BF human or ape?"

But here's the problem: haplogroup H is the most common haplogroup for modern humans of European descent. So what they had was DNA from two different white people living in America thousands of miles apart! What are the odds?!

So this thing was off the rails from the start. But it gets worse. More later.
 
parnassus said:
it implies that if your own hair somehow got sent in to Dr. Ketchum, and she did your mtDNA, and found it to be that of a modern human homo sapiens sapiens, you are suddenly transformed into a novel hominin, even without doing your nuDNA. It's a miracle. You have become a bigfoot, whatever your heritage...she's not prejudiced. Anyone can be a bigfoot in the land of the free.
Click to expand...

We are bigfoot.
 
theagenes said:
Okay, so here's what I've been piecing together. I've seen from reading old posts on the BFF that Parnassus and Jodie were discussing this with Stubstad before he died and they know a lot more about this than I do. I'm pretty late to the game, but I'm trying to reconstuct as best I can how this prehistoric hybridization idea got started.

So to start you have to go back to Richard Substad's involvement in MK's study beginning in 2009. As soon as I have enough posts I can add the link to the reports he wrote about his involvement, the early results he was privy to, and his interpretation of them. If someelse can post the link that would be great.

In the first of these he talks about his background and how he got interested in the the study. The first couple of results sounded really promising:



But here's the problem, when you look at these two results what they actually got was human mtDNA, both from haplogroup H. Since they had already made the assumtion a priori that the samples were from two BFs separated by thousands of miles this seemed like a big deal.

So from the very beginning the study was never about "Is BF real?"; it was about "Is BF human or ape?"

But here's the problem: haplogroup H is the most common haplogroup for modern humans of European descent. So what they had was DNA from two different white people living in America thousands of miles apart! What are the odds?!

So this thing was off the rails from the start. But it gets worse. More later.
Click to expand...

They checked DNA from two different sites and it was human so they concluded BF exists?

Is that right?
 
LTC8K6 said:
It says right in the beginning of the paper that they hypothesized that the samples were from sasquatch.

So it really says that they don't know what the sample source is.

Could be Mothman.
Click to expand...

Looks like a more sophisticated 'BF in a freezer' scam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom