Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a scream!!! Bahahahaha!

so in checking on some references melba used for her paper, i come across what she has as #5 in her list. (BTW there is a standard form for scientific journals lit cited, and this is not it!)
anyway she cites:

Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)

as part of the "evidence lending credence to the existance of sasquatch ... in peer reviewed manuscripts".

If that paper does not ring a bell for you, it is one of the best known April Fools Jokes in biological geekdom history!

Thats a great paper , completely written tongue in cheek, is hilarious (at least to geeks) and identifies itself as an April Fools Joke. (Robin, check the last paragraph for confirmation!)

And Melba cites it as a serious peer reviewed manuscript supporting the existance of bigfoot - how cool is that!

I can only conclude that Melba is an octopus, that is the only way she could survive shooting herself in the foot so many times!
CWB
 
Last edited:
calwaterbear said:
This statement is not true, I pointed out that it was incorrect several months ago, and apparently you have either ignored that fact, or convieniently forgotten.

Go back and listen to that interview. You are taking a 10 second statement, a fragment of one sentence, and trying to twist it into support for your personal belief. At least listen to the one sentence, maybe the one before and after, and he is clearly not making this claim!

And you know that BTW
Click to expand...

Are you sure we are thinking of the same statement? Based on what I read on the BFF, he really did say it's perhaps the only credible part of her paper. So I'm pretty sure I heard it right.
 
I think it was taken out of context OS, he didn't say anything she did was credible, what he said was that the hybrid theory was credible. It didn't have anything to do with what she was claiming but was referencing back to current research for Denisovans and Neandertals.
 
calwaterbear said:
so in checking on some references melba used for her paper, i come across what she has as #5 in her list. (BTW there is a standard form for scientific journals lit cited, and this is not it!)
anyway she cites:

Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)

as part of the "evidence lending credence to the existance of sasquatch ... in peer reviwed manuscripts".

If that paper does not ring a bell for you, it is one of the best known April Fools Fokes in biological geekdom history!

Thats a great paper , completely written tongue in cheek, is hilarious (at least to geeks) and identifies itself as an April Fools Joke.

And Melba cites it as a serious peer reviewed manuscript supporting the existance of bigfoot - how cool is that!

I can only conclude that Melba is an octopus, that is the only way she could survive shooting herself in the foot so many times!
CWB
Click to expand...


Are you serious? She really listed that reference? OMG...........
 
calwaterbear said:
so in checking on some references melba used for her paper, i come across what she has as #5 in her list. (BTW there is a standard form for scientific journals lit cited, and this is not it!)
anyway she cites:

Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)

as part of the "evidence lending credence to the existance of sasquatch ... in peer reviwed manuscripts".

If that paper does not ring a bell for you, it is one of the best known April Fools Fokes in biological geekdom history!

Thats a great paper , completely written tongue in cheek, is hilarious (at least to geeks) and identifies itself as an April Fools Joke.

And Melba cites it as a serious peer reviewed manuscript supporting the existance of bigfoot - how cool is that!

I can only conclude that Melba is an octopus, that is the only way she could survive shooting herself in the foot so many times!
CWB
Click to expand...

I swear it's as if Ketchum (DVM) unknowingly collaborated with the editors of The Onion.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Are you sure we are thinking of the same statement? Based on what I read on the BFF, he really did say it's perhaps the only credible part of her paper. So I'm pretty sure I heard it right.
Click to expand...

go back and listen to the original interview, instead of relying on heresay and 3rd hand reports!
 
This women just keeps the jokes coming don't she, I have to say this is some great stuff, the footers are getting what they needed, a great wake up call and stomped on big time by a pretty large hoax that was so easy to see right from the gate, well it's live and won't learn I am sure.

Tim :)
 
Can someone give me a reference for exposing the "joke" on this paper? I need to write it up for DN. I was not familiar with it.
 
The entire thing is the joke, how can one point out just one gag when there are so many, just the fact that a person would let themselves be taken by this is a laugh, I am sure we are not even close the the end of this, I am reminded of the movie ~The Sting~ melba is just one of the characters, the rest will be flushed out soon enough and live to do it another day, ain't footin fun ~

Tim :)
 
calwaterbear said:
Alot of the stuff i have come across, and questions i have, have been raised here and in BFF. TheAgenes is doing a particulalry good job in summing it up and giving it historical background that really helps with the understanding.

Right now I am a bit handicapped because my copy of the paper seems to be missing the legends and labels for all of the figures. For instance Is the tissue sample with the ruler for size comparison - is that figure 13? or is there another figure 13 somewhere else? (BTW please note the ruler - it is in standard US - Inches! I got a huge chuckle out of that!)
If anyone can help me out there, i would appreciate it.

Note to Robin - "editors" of "scientific journals" actually label their figures, and require captions and titles! you might want to consider that on Volume 1 issue #2, of DeNovo which I am anxiously awaiting!

Anyway, right now i am simply trying to determine what sample #26 is. in suplementary data 4 it identifies it as being a toenail, but the discription in the paper of that sample talks about tissue and hair! i have no idea? And that unnumbered figure of that sample, looks a lot like the Smeja sample. it surely does not look like a toenail, and in my copy of the paper, i cannot find a photo of a toenail anywhere?

Also, justin Smeja is identified in the Acknowledgements, as having collected sample(s?), but his name does not appear on that table #4 that lists all the samples. Its almost like they tried to scrub reference of him from the paper, use another sample to cover over his, but apparently was unable to figure out how to use the search feature of MS Word to assure his name was completely removed!
Click to expand...

Your version is undoubtedly a false flag version of the original. The Men in Black altered the flawless original, and posted it for free on the internet, in order to discredit her. At least, this is what I heard while waiting for my extra toast 3x1 animal-style, but since it wasn't on the internet, it could be completely wrong.
 
Yep, that's what I found. The entire paper is there too. Hilarious. Oh this is going to be good. If I hurry, I can scoop "BIGFOOT EVIDENCE" HAHAHAAH
 
calwaterbear said:
s
And Melba cites it as a serious peer reviewed manuscript supporting the existance of bigfoot - how cool is that!
Click to expand...

Milinkovitch et al. (2004) does establish the existence of the yeti. It also provides the remarkable information regarding the extreme genetic convergence between yetis and horses. They got results from their DNA analysis that were positive for horse. Conclusion: yeti DNA is really similar to horse DNA.

Melba found DNA indicating Homo sapiens. That can only mean remarkable convergence between bigfoot and Homo sapiens DNA.

No wonder she cites it as a reputable source - she applied similar logic to the result!
 
Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

Inspired by CWB, I was looking through some of Melba's other references.

Turns out #9 is also a little tongue-in-cheek, inspired by the paper CWB found (as noted in the acknowledgements). It basically compares the distribution of bigfoot sightings to black bear sightings to show that user-submitted identifications of animals can be very questionable.

Here is the reference:
Lozier, J D, Aniello, P and Hickerson, M J. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling. Journal of Biogeography 36:1623–1627. (2009)
 
bbaytie said:
Long Time Lurker, First Time Poster

Inspired by CWB, I was looking through some of Melba's other references.

Turns out #9 is also a little tongue-in-cheek, inspired by the paper CWB found (as noted in the acknowledgements). It basically compares the distribution of bigfoot sightings to black bear sightings to show that user-submitted identifications of animals can be very questionable.

Here is the reference:
Lozier, J D, Aniello, P and Hickerson, M J. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling. Journal of Biogeography 36:1623–1627. (2009)
Click to expand...

The Coltman Davis paper ref 6 is also a tongue in cheek piece. Good lord.
 
Thanks for the Coltman and Davis reminder:

"There are several possible explanations for these results. First, as suggested from molecular analysis of hair from a suspected Yeti [1], the Sasquatch might be a highly elusive ungulate that exhibits surprising morpho- logical convergence with primates. Alternately, the hair might have originated from a real bison and be unrelated to the Sasquatch. Parsimony would favor the second interpretation, in which case, the identity and taxonomy of this enigmatic and elusive creature remains a mystery."

Sharon, if you need a unicorn paper, I've also got one of those: Hurlbert (1990). He published on the spatial distribution of the montane unicorn in the journal Oikos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom