Me either, and I'm not even a for real scientist!
I thought the attack on him was a bit harsh, he's new here!
Plus i think the little tardigrade things are neat looking.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot DNA
- Thread starter GT/CS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot dna ed smith melba ketchum
- Status
Me either, and I'm not even a for real scientist!
I thought the attack on him was a bit harsh, he's new here!
Plus i think the little tardigrade things are neat looking.
except that he may be a Cal Bear, which would be grounds for banning.
plus, Oski bites.
obtw, TheMelba is still on the program, to speak on
Time for an office pool on when she will
I can almost guarantee, however, that her
I could be wrong. But I was right when I said the Giants should have traded Brian Wilson.
p.
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Me either, and I'm not even a for real scientist!
I thought the attack on him was a bit harsh, he's new here!
Plus i think the little tardigrade things are neat looking.
Yea, I apologize.
It's pretty easy to get romantic about the thing we are studying and call little bitty things monsters and all -
When it comes amongst the fray of "I have a baby dragon in my box but I can't let you see it..." You just roll your eyes and think oh boy here's another one. So then when you choose not to use terms of trade thinking the audience will understand better - now people are jumping on the vocabulary as evidence, and the correlation is spurious. You don't know because the data is limited so as more comes in we get a better idea what is going on.
I am starting a collection for his benefit. Make Western Union contributions out in my mother in law's name at Lanao Del Norte Philippines. Send money transfer control numbers to me by PM and we'll make up for this unfortunate incident.
Parn, you're killing me !! I think Calwaterbear may be onto something about the primers, and that the primers will be patented or copyrighted or trade marked, whichever is the appropriate term. Other scientists will be unable to replicate her findings without the custom-made primers. Using human, chimpanzee, or gorilla just won't cut it. It's just another "angle" to work to make a few bucks off the Monkey in the Trunk.
Well, I can't see an peer reviewed journal of merit accepting her paper (even as just a paper on unknown human DNA) with custom primers that cannot be examined. It's akin to saying "I made up my own math to prove this dark matter theory of mine, but you can't see it"
I think that her intention may have been to develop and patent a rapid test for bigfoot DNA. In fact, I believe that she mentioned at some point that she now had such a rapid test. Or at least, something more rapid than she initially had.
I am kind of struck by the similarity between Ketchum's bigfoot DNA business and the Bigfoot Club that Roger Patterson dreamed up back in the 60's. The details of the Club are in The Making of Bigfoot, but it amounted to inducing young boys to mail in money and get back......nothing. oh wait, I think there were two newsletters. But according to the book, Patterson threw away many of the return addresses after he took the cash.
caveat emptor, Junior Birdmen.
I am kind of struck by the similarity between Ketchum's bigfoot DNA business and the Bigfoot Club that Roger Patterson dreamed up back in the 60's. The details of the Club are in The Making of Bigfoot, but it amounted to inducing young boys to mail in money and get back......nothing. oh wait, I think there were two newsletters. But according to the book, Patterson threw away many of the return addresses after he took the cash.
caveat emptor, Junior Birdmen.
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Yes, and the reason being he could not open a bank account. He was such a deadbeat conman bad-check passer he had to settle accounts before getting any money himself through a bank. Therefore throw away all checks, keep the cash, and forget about answering.
That tells you how thoroughly contemptuous of anyone else he was.
Last edited:
AttorneyTom
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 883
I mean this in a respectful way....
I have given this alot of thought and I think that I am going to invest in a white lab coat to wear when I click on this thread.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
It is a laboratory for observing antisocial disorders. The primary character Roger Patterson is an outstanding example, and the default position of nearly everyone is to assume he is a far better character than he really was. That is why decades could go by without anyone even bothering to dig up the huge file folders of bad debt, unfulfilled obligations, running around on his wife, etc.
Look what Parn dug up on the Better Business Bureau with Ketchum - an "F" rating. This is not an accident. This is the central theme of 'footery: bad faith dealing with others. How do you get an "F" rating? That takes sustained committment to unethical conduct.
Roger Patterson himself said he was the worst person to have come up with the PGF. Following that model, who better to come up with a bigfoot DNA paper than an F-rated business? Gee, what a coincidence.
Look what Parn dug up on the Better Business Bureau with Ketchum - an "F" rating. This is not an accident. This is the central theme of 'footery: bad faith dealing with others. How do you get an "F" rating? That takes sustained committment to unethical conduct.
Roger Patterson himself said he was the worst person to have come up with the PGF. Following that model, who better to come up with a bigfoot DNA paper than an F-rated business? Gee, what a coincidence.
No, this is awesome (in a silly way)
Lindsay is reporting that the "paper" will be published at the end of the month, he then follows it up with a bunch of DNA gibberish that I need translating by yee olde science folk on here
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/04/robert-lindsay-is-back-reveals-ketchum.html#moretop
Lindsay is reporting that the "paper" will be published at the end of the month, he then follows it up with a bunch of DNA gibberish that I need translating by yee olde science folk on here
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/04/robert-lindsay-is-back-reveals-ketchum.html#moretop
idoubtit
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 365
Lindsay called me "baby" once, so he can drop dead. Besides the fact that he is (to be charitable) full of it.
And, Bigfoot Evidence is total crap these days, but look what they have to work with. Why they give RL a forum, I don't know. Oh wait, yes I do, AD HITS.
And, Bigfoot Evidence is total crap these days, but look what they have to work with. Why they give RL a forum, I don't know. Oh wait, yes I do, AD HITS.
AttorneyTom
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 883
Well... I was able to save 20% on auto insurance on their site.. plus I added a special rider to my policy in case I accidentally hit one !
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,758
http://voices.yahoo.com/bigfoot-bones-sasquatch-skeleton-analyzed-compared-10977262.html?cat=58
Look at this and note he cites as resources more of his own writing.
He also talked about DNA here
http://voices.yahoo.com/bigfoot-dna-report-hypothesis-2011-8786601.html?cat=58
Look at this and note he cites as resources more of his own writing.
From the essay above said:
He also talked about DNA here
http://voices.yahoo.com/bigfoot-dna-report-hypothesis-2011-8786601.html?cat=58
anything is possible; for example, it's possible this guy can find his backside in the dark.
his primary sources were
1. "Bigfoot had my baby", Midnight Sun
2. "I had bigfoots baby", National Enquirer
But seriously, biology doesn't tend to work this way. Much as Ketchum might like it to...
this is the thinking behind "ThePaper", more or less. It's basically the same ad hoc fallacy that informs so much of what is "known" about "bigfoot". It goes like this: Since we have to admit x, then if bigfoot exists, y must be true. ie Since we have to admit that there are no bodies, then if bigfoot exists, bigfoot must be "elusive." Before long, it becomes, "bigfoot IS elusive, " instead of "bigfoot doesn't exist."
in this case:
The mtDNA is undeniably modern human. Therefore if bigfoot exists, then differences in the nuDNA must be the key, and the nuDNA must not be modern human, and therefore it is a hybrid.
According to this "theory" (actually an ad hoc) "bigfoots" are just breeding and interbreeding all over the place with humans and each other and as a result they are all different, except they are all descended from modern human women....different modern human women.
Except that isn't the way nature tends to work. Has something like this happened? yes, like every hundred thousand years... that doesn't mean it's happening now. Stable species tend to evolve. Like tends to mate with like, not with unlike. Gorillas don't abduct and rape modern human women, and then form a stable family unit with them, etc etc. Then baby boy finds another modern human to rape and abduct, etc....Neither do chimps, or orangs, or bonobos. It's all so absurd. Could we be at one of those rare points in biological history where a hybrid has appeared but is not yet stable. Sure. And the pope could be texting me right now.
Apparently Ketchum is still trying to prove that if a modern human nuDNA isn't in Genbank, then comes from a bigfoot, and those are the hybrids. It is hard to imagine any peer reviewers/editors taking that seriously, let alone publishing it. But as I have said before, there are some pretty lame journals. If she did publish this stuff in one of them, it would be decimated by primatologists and geneticists.
his primary sources were
1. "Bigfoot had my baby", Midnight Sun
2. "I had bigfoots baby", National Enquirer
But seriously, biology doesn't tend to work this way. Much as Ketchum might like it to...
this is the thinking behind "ThePaper", more or less. It's basically the same ad hoc fallacy that informs so much of what is "known" about "bigfoot". It goes like this: Since we have to admit x, then if bigfoot exists, y must be true. ie Since we have to admit that there are no bodies, then if bigfoot exists, bigfoot must be "elusive." Before long, it becomes, "bigfoot IS elusive, " instead of "bigfoot doesn't exist."
in this case:
The mtDNA is undeniably modern human. Therefore if bigfoot exists, then differences in the nuDNA must be the key, and the nuDNA must not be modern human, and therefore it is a hybrid.
According to this "theory" (actually an ad hoc) "bigfoots" are just breeding and interbreeding all over the place with humans and each other and as a result they are all different, except they are all descended from modern human women....different modern human women.
Except that isn't the way nature tends to work. Has something like this happened? yes, like every hundred thousand years... that doesn't mean it's happening now. Stable species tend to evolve. Like tends to mate with like, not with unlike. Gorillas don't abduct and rape modern human women, and then form a stable family unit with them, etc etc. Then baby boy finds another modern human to rape and abduct, etc....Neither do chimps, or orangs, or bonobos. It's all so absurd. Could we be at one of those rare points in biological history where a hybrid has appeared but is not yet stable. Sure. And the pope could be texting me right now.
Apparently Ketchum is still trying to prove that if a modern human nuDNA isn't in Genbank, then comes from a bigfoot, and those are the hybrids. It is hard to imagine any peer reviewers/editors taking that seriously, let alone publishing it. But as I have said before, there are some pretty lame journals. If she did publish this stuff in one of them, it would be decimated by primatologists and geneticists.
Parn, I get to ask the stupid question, well, because I am good at asking stupid questions. If somehow she can state the nuDNA is not in Genbank, it doesn't necessarily rule out modern human does it ? I mean Occam's Razor would have me believe that even if you say the nuDNA is not in the Genbank, you can't immediately make the assumption that it's the Trunk Monkey.
its not a stupid question but I will give you a trivial answer: every human probably has unique DNA (except of course for identical siblings).
All DNA sequences are not in GenBank.
But what about certain conserved regions and well known genes? There are many versions of these in GenBank. Are they exhaustive? probably not. Many if not most variants have little effect or no effect, and some make me look like me instead of like Brad Pitt. But none are known that make modern humans stand 8 feet tall and weigh 600 pounds, have glowing eyes, hinged feet, be nocturnal, and so on. But that doesn't prevent some folks from seeing an single nucleotide polymorphism in a hair color gene and saying "oh look, everyone knows bigfoot has kind of sort of maybe reddish hair!!!!!! We proved it!!"
All DNA sequences are not in GenBank.
But what about certain conserved regions and well known genes? There are many versions of these in GenBank. Are they exhaustive? probably not. Many if not most variants have little effect or no effect, and some make me look like me instead of like Brad Pitt. But none are known that make modern humans stand 8 feet tall and weigh 600 pounds, have glowing eyes, hinged feet, be nocturnal, and so on. But that doesn't prevent some folks from seeing an single nucleotide polymorphism in a hair color gene and saying "oh look, everyone knows bigfoot has kind of sort of maybe reddish hair!!!!!! We proved it!!"
- Status