Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Munns crushed that out of the park.

Dares them to serve him with a lawsuit.

Awesome job.
 
parnassus said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=491&pictureid=7448[/qimg]

Seems I was wrong...
...or was I...?

Many months ago, at the end of 2010 or early 2011, there was speculation about whether and how one could seem to "prove" bigfoot through DNA analysis. Based partly on the Native American mtDNA mistakenly touted as bigfoots in the Snelgrove Lake fiasco, I speculated that one could, if one wished, obtain samples from some isolated tribal group that wasn't yet in GenBank, then possibly mail them in to an unsuspecting lab from post offices all over the country. That way, the lab would naively think that they had identified "novel" DNA from related individuals all over North America. Quite a theory, eh? Some people ridiculed my plan as too complicated, too expensive.

At that time, others raised the question of whether it was possible/feasible to artificially create DNA that could be mistaken for that of a sasquatch. I (and most others) quickly dismissed this idea as fantastically expensive and difficult to a degree that would put it out of the realm of practicality.

It appears that I may have been wrong on both counts. I haven't seen conclusive evidence that my scheme has ever been carried out, at least it hasn't been published. And it turns out that, for example, common bleach has been well-known to have powerful effects on DNA and on its analysis, though I am not up to speed on how bleach, with or without other reagents or treatments, might affect the results of some more recent sequencing techniques.

So, I was wrong.....although....we will never know for sure what might have happened had I kept my big yap shut.
Click to expand...

I brought it up here, it is quite easy to create artificial DNA in a lab, any post graduate student could do it according to what I read.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/7/285

It might be where she got the name of the journal from....not that it was a new species, but as an inside joke about "creating" the DNA to read whatever she wanted it to say.

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/05/chimera-monkeys-combining-several-embryos

If she was capable of doing in vitro for pure bred horses she most certainly would be able to do this by ordering some stem cells designated for research.
 
Last edited:
Ketchum responds

Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.

One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript
Click to expand...
 
Jerrymander said:
Ketchum responds
Click to expand...
Do to the wild rumors out on the internet. I felt it important to address a new rumor about a possible hoax. First we have never hoaxed anything as there is no need to. We have the proof we need in the science. I hope this helps everyone understand.

One of the early reviewers asked for any and all references related to our subject matter. We neither agreed with nor endorsed any of those references used though Bindernagel's books are a good effort since at the time he didn't know the human element involved. It was not our choice to use any of them though. That ref was a testament to the idiocy surrounding not only the scientific bias against the existence of these "people" but also the request by reviewers for refs that we had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally. This same reviewer required the so-called folklore that is in the introduction. That also was not in the original manuscript
Click to expand...
If she is to be believed Ketchum (DVM) needs to address each cite or "ref" individually and explain how she researched them or provide evidence that a "reviewer" suggested their inclusion.

If she claims none of them were included originally, she needs to provide the originals; if there were no originals is she saying she had no references at all?
 
I don't think blaming this on non existent peer review is going to cut it, no one is going to request those references.

She could have just as easily used articles related to the Denisovans and Neandertals to try to make her case but if you read those papers they happen to manage to pull the same DNA from the specimens no matter what process they use, no special primers needed........
 
So, let's just digest what Ketchum says. It was the referee that made her do it. So, if we extrapolate, then there are two possible conclusions based upon her statement. One, the referee realized what a joke her paper really was and forced her to reference a blatant April Fools joke; or, two, the referee was not qualifed to review the paper, and forced inclusion of a blatant April Fools joke out of ignorance. Of course, all this assumes you can take her statement at face value. If you disagreed with the referee, do you not think an editor from such a highly respected journal as DeNovo would have chosen to edit out an obvious April Fools joke from the references to maintian the journal's integrity ? Someone help me out here
 
Either she never wrote a paper and got Robin to do it as a last minute thing for the "journal" since Wally is no longer paying her, or she really is that stupid.
 
TheJackal said:
So, let's just digest what Ketchum says. It was the referee that made her do it. So, if we extrapolate, then there are two possible conclusions based upon her statement. One, the referee realized what a joke her paper really was and forced her to reference a blatant April Fools joke; or, two, the referee was not qualifed to review the paper, and forced inclusion of a blatant April Fools joke out of ignorance. Of course, all this assumes you can take her statement at face value. If you disagreed with the referee, do you not think an editor from such a highly respected journal as DeNovo would have chosen to edit out an obvious April Fools joke from the references to maintian the journal's integrity ? Someone help me out here
Click to expand...

Her responsibility to vet all inclusions, attachments and references in her paper. Whose responsibilty would it be?
 
Jodie said:
Either she never wrote a paper and got Robin to do it as a last minute thing for the "journal" since Wally is no longer paying her, or she really is that stupid.
Click to expand...

You do realize her apologists will play up the scientfic bias/conspiracy angle big time. Poor Melba was duped by those wishing her to look foolish (tough gig), they wanted to discredit her research so they could publish their own, a some meanies skeptics did it, yaddah-yaddah-yaddah.
 
Resume said:
Her responsibility to vet all inclusions, attachments and references in her paper. Whose responsibilty would it be?
Click to expand...

I need to include the "sarcasm" flag on my posts. Clearly, she is still attempting to fool some of the people all of the time. Continuing to "blame science" and to become a "bigfoot martyr" is obviously the only out left to explain the shoddy work done on the paper.
 
So according to this statement (melbas latest Facebook excuse): if I am understanding it correctly, she first turned in a "scientific paper" without any references. Which by itself is an amazing claim. there has never been a "scientific paper" published in a "peer reviewed" "scientific journal" that was without references. None, Zero.

So then, when she is required to produce "references" (to protect herself and the journal from plagerism and academic fraud) she puts in a bunch of references she does not believe in or agree with? Huh?

Geeze, you would expect in the very least that someone over there would have a least actually seen a paper in a scientific journal. Not only are they making up excuses as they go, but their excuses clearly demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the process of writing, reviewing, editing or publishing a "peer reviewed" journal. The neither know how its done, nor do they care!

Unbelievable: and once more, clear evidence that Robin Lynne Pfeipher Haynes is reading this site on an hourly basis, and posts here are driving this idiotic undereducated drivel they spew thinking it will pass for an explanation!

Hey Robin, hows things going? would you like me to introduce you to an actual editor of a real scientific journal? and arrange a tour for you so you will, at least once in your life, see how real scientists and academics actually do this stuff? i can do that for you, and it would be right in your neighborhood, less than 150 miles away!

Darn it, i wanted to be the first post on page 100, guess I screwed rthat up!

Jerrymander said:
Ketchum responds
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TheJackal said:
I need to include the "sarcasm" flag on my posts. Clearly, she is still attempting to fool some of the people all of the time. Continuing to "blame science" and to become a "bigfoot martyr" is obviously the only out left to explain the shoddy work done on the paper.
Click to expand...

No I got you; I was just adding on.
 
calwaterbear said:
So according to this statement (melbas latest Facebook excuse): if I am understanding it correctly, she first turned in a "scientific paper" without any references. Which by itself is an amazing claim. there has never been a "scientific paper" published in a "peer reviewed" "scientific journal" that was without references. None, Zero.
Click to expand...

These folks don't even get that having no references is as bad as those they included or maybe even worse.
 
Resume said:
You do realize her apologists will play up the scientfic bias/conspiracy angle big time. Poor Melba was duped by those wishing her to look foolish (tough gig), they wanted to discredit her research so they could publish their own, a some meanies skeptics did it, yaddah-yaddah-yaddah.
Click to expand...


If they participated on the BFF in the last two years then they have no excuse. The real intent of those articles were discussed ad nauseum on that forum. Because those articles are posted on the BFF it disqualifies any excuse the footers might concoct about her being duped. She is a college graduate with a working doctorate, she should have enough sense to recognize what the articles were about. That leaves three possibilities:

1. She knew and didn't care because it was a lost cause once Wally's pay check stopped coming.
2. She didn't write the paper and foisted it off on Robin Lynn, who didn't know any better.
3. She really is that stupid.
 
Jodie said:
If they participated on the BFF in the last two years then they have no excuse.
Click to expand...

Looking at what passes for evidence in footery, there's a whole bunch of stuff they have no excuse for, yet . . .

I'd really hope for some of these folks to see the light regarding more than just Ketchum (DVM) but I have no such illusions. I think your assessment of the Melba is correct though.
 
Last edited:
Ketchum played the Galileo card early on.

And she begins her latest with "do" when it should be "due." She has never once impressed as a competent scientist, in any venue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom