• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just go to Bigfoot Evidence and scroll down the page. It's the picture of blurry sticks. You can't miss it.
 
BravesFan said:
Today on BE, there is an article with quotes from her denying a hoax and saying that she has "dozens" of co- authors including"PHD's and Department Heads"

No elaboration..... Would she be barred from naming these contributors and co-authors?
Click to expand...

not by a journal; only by common courtesy (what if it flops?); she didn't really say "dozens" did she? the journal seldom cares what an author divulges as long as the final paper isn't published in another venue, and the author doesn't give news conferences. It varies a little bit but the case is grossly overstated or over implied.
 
GT/CS said:
See if this works.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/04/dr-melba-ketchum-shares-photo-of-sticks.html
Click to expand...

I found great entertainment in that, thanks.

My favorite parts:
I hope you that have seen these types of structures will enjoy the photo
Click to expand...
I have nothing to prove so I would rather see and interact with them without a camera than to not see them
Click to expand...

So you took the photo with a ... damp rag?
Sounds like a pretty amazing non-camera you have there, Melba.
A non-camera taking non-photos?
 
parnassus said:
not by a journal; only by common courtesy (what if it flops?); she didn't really say "dozens" did she? the journal seldom cares what an author divulges as long as the final paper isn't published in another venue, and the author doesn't give news conferences. It varies a little bit but the case is grossly overstated or over implied.
Click to expand...

here's her quote (and she didn't say dozens after all, so my bad)

It is legitimate science involving several disciplines. I wouldn't have double digit co-authors many with PhDs and some University Heads of Departments if this was nothing more than a hoax. We are ALL putting it on the line. Like one head of department said, this is so interesting, why wouldn't we want to be a part of this? Most of the authors have been in on this project for a long time. As we did more science, we added a couple more with a certain expertise. Our bases are well covered
Click to expand...


She did claim PHD's and Department Heads (though in what Dept's? ) Also, "interesting" is hardly what I would expect a PHD in Zoology,Biology or any other applicable science to say when provided "Irrefutable proof of the existence of Bigfoot" I would expect "Holy Cow it's amazing!!"
 
Last edited:
All her bases are well covered ... now all I have going through my head is Abbott and Costello. Hey Melba, "Who's on first?"

That whole statement just smacks of puffery to me.
 
Well, her lab "person" that was listed on her web site is a PhD. But seriously, it only makes sense that she needed help. So she got it. And I don't imagine they told her that she had proof of bigfoot. That is the big letdown that is coming in the paper, imho, and the reason she is mounting a big PR campaign. I could be wrong. For instance, I never thought the Giants could come back in the top of the ninth against the Reds. I did think Aubrey Huff was headed for a release, so there's that.....and I correctly called the Steelers taking DeCastro.
 
Last edited:
I imagine they told her, hey it's interesting that you have mDNA that indicates human and nDNA with a strange polymorphism. It's interesting that you had to develop your own primers. It's interesting that there is no provenance for the samples. It's interesting that you have no body or large portion of a body. Go ahead and publish the paper, because the only interesting thing you have is some "interesting" and "unknown" human DNA. Oh, and never mind that you could be dealing with a contaminated sample. It's not like it wasn't handled by humans.
 
Last edited:
What does, "I wouldn't have double digit co-authors many with PhDs and some University Heads of Departments if this was nothing more than a hoax" mean?

"if this was a hoax" I understand but what the heck is "if this was nothing more than a hoax"?
 
It's Friday and I need my DNA fix. I have this completely unrelated memory from my Hydraulics Course in college. Well it's not completely unrelated.

We conducted a lab experiment to calculate a hydraulic jump over an object in a small channel in the hydraulics lab. We diligently took measurements of the channel, the flow rate, the object, the actual hydraulic jump; essentially all of the physical measurements we could make during that experiment. There were seven very smart engineering students and their grid paper doing their engineering thing. Well, we concluded the experiment, and then proceeded to use the data collected to calculate the theoretical height of the hydraulic jump. What was almost unfathomable (pun intended) was that the measured jump didn't match the theoretical jump. So what did these seven smart engineering students do ? Did we cook the numbers to match the theory (Jan Hendrick Schon) or did we turn in the measured data knowing full well they didn't match the theoretical value ? Well we chose the latter, and didn't necessarily receive the best grade.

My point is, that if you have a predetermined outcome of your experiment, and your laboratory data doesn't match your predetermined outcome, what is the recourse? This is the huge "blindspot" in the peer review process. The reviewers don't know if you "fudged" the data to match your predetermined conclusion, or if you just did the darned experiment wrong. All they know is that seven really smart people took a bunch of measurements with the best intention of producing a result. Those seven people followed the correct methodology, measured all the correct items, collected the correct data, and produced a conclusion. Looks like they did a good job, but the peer reviewer has no access to the experiment, data, etc.

This is what bothers me about the Footers running around ringing their bells that Bigfoot is proven to exist because a paper gets published (well, maybe published). This is also why most in the scientific community will essentially ignore the results, or let out a collective yawn. Yep, you did an experiment, it looks like it was done correctly, but give me the samples, and let me verify. So, even if some intrepid scientist does replicate the results, then what do you have ? Certainly not Bigfoot. You have some odd human DNA. That's it. Nothing more. Maybe it's people with Blue Skin? Maybe it's someone with large earlobes ? Who knows, other than it's unusual. But I love the logic flaw involved in the Footer argument.

Sorry for my rant, but for those Footers that lurk, think about it. There is a paper, it may have a conclusion, it may be printed in a peer-reviewd Journal, but the one thing it will not do, in absence of a living/dead specimen, is prove the existence of Bigfoot. Ok, I am out. We are having our Downtown Hollow Earth pub crawl today.

Edit: And in no way am I implying that the Ketchum Hokum fudged their data. The story was to relate the inherent weakness of the peer-review process.
 
Last edited:
good story; I am surprised you didn't break out the expression "dry lab" which would have been especially apropos.

yes, I hear you. Peer review is not "sitting in the lab watching you do the testing."

There are ways that Ketchum could have been misled by those who sent her specimens. Lab error is always a possibility and is the main reason for retaining some of the specimen so that independent confirmation can be obtained.
 
Yeah, we did call it "dry lab" when you cooked the results. I wasn't sure if that was local vernacular or widely accepted vernacular.
 
TheJackal said:
I am not going to post the drivel here, but the Ketchum Hokum is now claiming "it's not a hoax" and "I have double digit authors" on thePaper. ABP what part of the Trunk scheme is this ? Is this the vehement denial phase ? I think it's funny that she thinks listing a bunch of authors somehow gives the paper merit. The desperation is palpable, but she is getting a lot of what she wants: attention.
Click to expand...

I can't add to this. With the trunk locked in the bank vault, the court orders the trunk opened, which led to immediate revelation of the hoax.

Nobody can force The Melba to open up the trunk, but the longer she goes making up excuses and adding more dramatic fluff to it the more entertaining it becomes. Like an asteroid burning up as it enters the atmosphere.

The sticks. This is why I come. It's just way too funny. I don't even know how to respond to it. Because it is a form of dark but comic genius, really - beyond my ability to even put into words. It actually brought tears to my eyes. It's a free country, so this is what you get. :)
 
trying to get a handle on this different peaks deal

So I have been looking into this suposed different peaks the Melba is apparently now rep0rting. The "peaks" they are speaking of is essentially lengths of DNA that are a series of repeats = (short Tandom repats = STR).

apparently this technique is routinely used when there is a mixture of male and female DNA, in that case this would seperate the 2. the number of bases in each repeat are the numbers they refer to, so a peak at 108 - 112, would mean that the sample had alot of segments that were 108 - 112 base pairs long .

I am sure there are other uses of STR, but so far i only find reference to using it in mixed DNA (male and female, sperm samples etc), or in determining sex. the length of the fragments can and is altered by using different primers, and in fact one paper I looked at was simply describing a new primer set that apprently resulted in cleaner results, and peaks in different places.

That does not mean Melba is doing anything wrong, but it would certainly be on her to describe why she chose STR, as opposed to just sequencing the sample. i assume her results, using whatever primers she chose, would have male and female human samples showing their peaks, and BF samples with different peaks (different length fragments). A bit hard because I assume she has a small sample size of Bigfoot DNA to work with, but I do not know!

my first question is why has she switched techniques. Had she been sucessfull in getting sequence, it is far more instructive that STR. And as far as i could figure, she had reported that she was sequencing, so I wonder?

just gets more and more obtuse, i wish her paper would come out and remove some of the drama and mystery!

calWB
 
"There are a lot of people that see them easily like I do. Most just will not discuss it for fear of ridicule...I really do not care what people think or say or if they believe it or not...I will reiterate, I do this for my own enjoyment..."
Oh snap! She finally lets the Prozac Hokum cat out of the bag. Although I guess an honest admission of the malady IS the real first step. Good thing she knows about the others who also 'see them 'easily' but won't discuss them for 'fear of ridicule'.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of people that see them easily like I do.

Yes, that is a very telling quote. Isn't it pretty much what psychics say?
 
Last edited:
Maximum woo, yes. Pscychic and "one with bigfoot". Some say you can hear their talk at frequencies lower than humans can hear. Like elephants. So if this is what she is doing then her psychic abilities are phony.

How are you getting your information calwaterbear?
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Maximum woo, yes. Pscychic and "one with bigfoot". Some say you can hear their talk at frequencies lower than humans can hear. Like elephants. So if this is what she is doing then her psychic abilities are phony.

How are you getting your information calwaterbear?
Click to expand...
I read what i can at the various believer / websites, then if I don't understand what they are talking about, I go google it up. easy to find papers discussing and using the techniques. If I'm still not clear, or need some further insight I just call up my lab rat DNA buddies and pick their brains! Not to hard to figure out what she is supposedly doing. The hard part is figuring out her justification!

If you wanna know the truth, i can not imagine that she will not produce a paper of some sort, in the immediate future. i can't believe she would have deluded herself into thinking that this could go on forever. So i assume there has to be a paper somewhere, but i think it's mundane stuff with no conclusion about bigfoot. Or it is not published in a true peer reviewed journal.

But consider for a moment the potential alternative explanation for all of this:
Maybe she has been pulling a double scam. Wouldn't that be cool if she came out and said: I've been scamming all the believers, I did that to collect 50 supposed samples, and here are the results, human , cow, bear etc, but not a bigfoot among them!

That would be really big news, unfortunately it will never happen!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom