Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, looking back in genetic history and genomes is far more complicated than matching the DNA of one people to another (as in crime labs)?
 
They did talk about Ketchum (DVM) going to Gen Bank and cutting out sequences, but I don't know if that's possible.

Does anyone here?
 
The Shrike said:
Sorry, I'm still sitting atop a big pile of turnips on this truck, and I've never heard of "Dreamland." (Looks like some kind of New Age-y woo-factory.)

I'd still like some info on this bleach thing. If TheMelba was perpetuating this level of fraud, i.e., intentionally manipulating the samples herself, then would she not be guilty of real, you're-going-to-jail fraud as opposed to "Sorry Your Honor, I actually was stupid enough to believe those samples had bigfoot DNA" fraud?
Click to expand...

By "this bleach thing," are you are referring to what Justin Smeja says that Dr. Ketchum allegedly asked him to do to the remaining "Sierra steak", on speaker phone with three other witnesses? If you are, then "the bleach thing" is really the "bleach-formaldehyde-water thing."
picture.php

As far as some other "info," I can tell you that one of the witnesses was so disgusted that he walked out shortly thereafter. Allegedly.

If she did it on purpose, surely she would have listed a reference to the original discoverers of the process. So I did look in the list of references at the end of the paper, to see if there were any that had key words or titles like,
"How to make your DNA look like a hybrid of 4 different animals by using bleach, formaldehyde and water"
Click to expand...
but I didn't find any. So that would be against her having done it on purpose. Of course, I could be wrong on that particular assumption.

I hope that helps. As far as the fraud/stupid dichotomy, I suggest that you ask a person who would have insights on that topic, and that person is Casey Mullens, the person listed as the editor of the journal that was created on Jan 4 and, according to Dr. Ketchum, was bought by her after doing an authentic peer review on her paper, and reworked into Denovo Scientific Journal. You find Jimmy Hoffa Amelia Earhart Santa Claus Casey Mullins, and maybe your questions will be answered.
 
Last edited:
Jerrymander said:
So, looking back in genetic history and genomes is far more complicated than matching the DNA of one people to another (as in crime labs)?
Click to expand...
Absolutely Jerry. ID is actually pretty simple and basic. You essentially look at 13 specific locations on the DNA - each of those locations contain a series of tandom repeats of DNA. The number of repeats is the key here. so you might have 6 repeats at location 1, , 22 repeats at location 2, 2 repeats at location 3 etc. Those number of repeats are pretty much random, so the chance of your numbers of repeats matching exactly anyone elses numbers of repeats at all locations - well thats almost impossible.

So thats what CODIS - the database used in criminolgy use. And the Military ID system as well.

Whole genomes, you are now dealing with 3 billion letters, and various places of those 3 billion letters can tell us alot about your evolutionary past, who you are related to, what species you belong too, what species you are most closely related too etc.

so in a nutshell - individual ID is pretty much stone dead simple. Species ID BTW is real simple too (unless you are melba, once she got the message loud and clear that she had human DNA - she had to go to woo woo land to try and justify continued fleecing of the old, infirm, and stupid!)
 
Uh Oh, Melba frees convicted Murderers!

So I doubtit posted this video, which is great, but It , just in passing , mentioned an unintended consequence of this paper, that I had never considered.
idoubtit said:
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/breaking-bio-on-the-ketchum-sasquatch-sequences/
Click to expand...

So lets say you are a defense lawyer, and your client has been put away for life, or sentenced to death, based in part on DNA evidence.
And just for a moment, lets suppose the DNA work was done in any one of the labs that are associated with the co-authors of this study!

Any good defense attorney would immediately file an appeal based on "new evidence" and would haul the coauthor into court, easily demonstrate that the Melba paper is complete BS, and challenge the coauthor to prove that they were indeed competent, because the paper proves otherwise.

This changes the "lets pretend and fleece the uninformed game" into one that may have real consequences. If one single Defense attorney in Texas, or Michigan or wherever else the co authors are located, get wind of this - there is going to be hell to pay!

Congratulations Melba, this just became damned serious!
Robin, you better get on the phone right now, and you better make sure all of the co-authors know whats coming!
CWB
 
Last edited:
calwaterbear said:
So I doubtit posted this video, which is great, but It , just in passing , mentioned an unintended consequence of this paper, that I had never considered.


So lets say you are a defense lawyer, and your client has been put away for life, or sentenced to death, based in part on DNA evidence.
And just for a moment, lets suppose the DNA work was done in any one of the labs that are associated with the co-authors of this study!

Any good defense attorney would immediately file an appeal based on "new evidence" and would haul the coauthor into court, easily demonstrate that the Melba paper is complete BS, and challenge the coauthor to prove that they were indeed competent, because the paper proves otherwise.
...

Congratulations Melba, this just became damned serious!
CWB
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say that, the scientists in the video did. But it also struck me as rather important.

What I'm wondering is... how could 60% be "junk" that doesn't match up? Can someone explain that to me.
 
The Shrike said:
Thanks parnassus.
Click to expand...

Oh, I did find this reference: Cherones T. and David L. (1993) "Effects of various reagents on seinological laboratory tests."
I can't seem to cut and paste the relevant section so here is the link; just go there and use your search function repeatedly to find the phrase "test tube" (without the quotes). I think those passages will give you some insight into what may have happened, or you could read the whole thing, it's pretty interesting.

Journal of DNA Laboratory Procedures and Reagents, Vol 5 (7) p. 508.

You know me, Al....always glad to help.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom