Bigfoot DNA

[DennyT]

The latest DNA claims are being made by ex-cop and author David Paulides ("paw LYE dess"?) and Dr. Melba Ketchum, a Ph.D vet/entrepreneur in Texas, who branched out into the so-called forensic DNA market for identifying your mutt's parents and finding stolen horses, etc etc. Ketchum collaborated on the great Yetsploitation brouhaha over the hair from some TV show, that didn't look human, according to her, but had kind of like human DNA.
Paulides and Ketchum are touting some new findings and promising some peer-reviewed article in the spring of 2011.
From what I can read and surmise, it seems as if they are going to try and make the case that bigfoot is very similar to human and very similar in DNA to human, possibly indistinguishable. I think this is the inevitable direction for bigfooting to go, as it more or less obviates the issue of the missing body, so to speak....we've been finding bigfoot biological specimens all along, the reasoning would be, we just mistook them for human. It's totally win-win for everyone but Meldrum and his ape ideas.

 

[Mahaha]

That's nonsensical.

There's no such thing, in describing calculated evolutionary relatedness, as X% organism A, Y% organism B. If you had really done some relevant DNA analyses (say, perhaps looking at mitochondrial DNA and the 16S ribosomal RNA sequence), you could say that it is X% similar to humans, Y% similar to gorilla, and Z% similar to mouse (and so forth), where the numbers would be in the high 90s if the organism you were testing were some intermediate between humans and other primates, and lower for the mouse.

You can't say something has 3% human DNA content.* It's cheap paperback novel (by an author who couldn't be bothered to do basic research) nonsense.

*Unless, perhaps, you are sequencing something that recently ATE a human, and you've accidentally sequenced its stomach contents along with the organism itself. Notably, these requires that you pureed the bigfoot first. Seems unlikely.

That is all true (everyone who has EVER studied ANYTHING about DNA sould know), and should conclusively put this bigfoot DNA "article" into the nonsense folder.

I mean, 3% human, 78% this, the rest something else... looks like a comic book I read while in middle school.

 

[DennyT]

Ketchum and Paulides sound very convinced that they have bigfoot DNA and that they have done the science correctly and will have a paper that is done right. They talk as if they have bigfoot specimens from all over the country. Paulides seems to be calling the shots as to how much information they are releasing.
Ketchum says they are writing the paper, but are still taking specimens (? ?; last time I heard it was 200 bucks a throw) and expect to have the paper published by the spring.

 

[William Parcher]

The latest DNA claims are being made by ex-cop and author David Paulides ("paw LYE dess"?) and Dr. Melba Ketchum, a Ph.D vet/entrepreneur in Texas, who branched out into the so-called forensic DNA market for identifying your mutt's parents and finding stolen horses, etc etc. Ketchum collaborated on the great Yetsploitation brouhaha over the hair from some TV show, that didn't look human, according to her, but had kind of like human DNA.
Paulides and Ketchum are touting some new findings and promising some peer-reviewed article in the spring of 2011.
From what I can read and surmise, it seems as if they are going to try and make the case that bigfoot is very similar to human and very similar in DNA to human, possibly indistinguishable. I think this is the inevitable direction for bigfooting to go, as it more or less obviates the issue of the missing body, so to speak....we've been finding bigfoot biological specimens all along, the reasoning would be, we just mistook them for human. It's totally win-win for everyone but Meldrum and his ape ideas.

As was mentioned here Paulides and Ketchum were on a radio interview show last night. It's now archived and can be heard at that link. Did you listen yet?

Ketchum says that she is not a PhD. She is fully confident that they have Bigfoot DNA and is finishing the paper now to send off for scientific peer review and publication. She says that if the peer review rejects this that it would be strictly based on anti-Bigfoot bias and not because of analysis or interpretation errors. IOW, she states that the science behind her conclusion is 100% accurate. If she is rejected she will move on to the next publication and so on until it is accepted and published. She says she knows of one editor who would be quite interested already. She said going "international" is possible if it is rejected in what might be mainstream science publications.

Paulides has a habit of not really answering questions directly. He confidently talks about Bigfoot mating with human (Indian) females as if it were a matter of fact. Something about how human males rape thousands of women each year... so why not Bigfoot raping women too.

You also get a bonus as Adrian Erickson (Kentucky Bigfoot Pancake Project) calls in and we hear from him.

 

[DennyT]

If you listen closely to Paulides and the relationship between the two, I think you can figure out what this scam is gonna be about. I actually think that Ketchum is probably an ignorant tool of Paulides, who has come up with a pretty clever idea of how to game the system.


WP: her bio says:

she received her doctorate in Veterinary Medicine.

Somewhat misleading. I have never heard of an MD or a vet refer to their degree as a doctorate.

 

[C_Felix]

Lets assume there is a bigfoot.
We manage to get some blood off of something
(I remember an episode of Monster Quest. A cabin in the deep woods of Alberta was broken into a few times, usually through the front door. The man thought it was a bear. What he did was take a 3x3 foot piece of plywood, and screw in about 100 screws so the head was flush. He placed this in the front of the door with the screws up with the hope that anything that stepped on it (bear or bigfoot) would get hurt and scared off. There was some dried blood type of goo stuff in one of the threads of the screw. Lets assume we get a nice fresh sample off of one of the screws.)

If we get this nice fresh sample and test it, the test would be inconclusive, wouldn't it?
We have nothing to compare it to.
We can't look at it like we would a dog's sample and be able to nail it down as a dog...
Know what I mean?

 

[GT/CS]

It wouldn't be inconclusive, it would be from an unclassified primate, or whatever bigfoot is.

I'm waiting for the day when some believer or hoaxer mixes gorilla blood with human blood and submits that sample for testing just to prove all the skeptics wrong.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm waiting for the day when some believer or hoaxer mixes gorilla blood with human blood and submits that sample for testing just to prove all the skeptics wrong.

That won't work because the two different DNAs won't blend. It will only look like contamination.

If you listen closely to Paulides and the relationship between the two, I think you can figure out what this scam is gonna be about. I actually think that Ketchum is probably an ignorant tool of Paulides, who has come up with a pretty clever idea of how to game the system.

You seem to suggest that it will be human DNA that is used in the "trick". But Ketchum already talks about the issue of contamination and how it is a potential problem. If the Bigfoot sample matches human markers then she is forced to deal with her own question of contamination. I don't think she will walk there given what she says. She would know that it is too vulnerable to bad peer review (just simple human contamination) and rejection. I think she is banking on measurable differences.

Paulides admits that the sample origin is bone. Are you suggesting that he has human bone and knows it?

 

[Weak Kitten]

What I can say is that their intention is to temporarily capture a juvenile BF for the purpose of filming the team of credentialed scientists as they take blood, tissue and hair samples for testing; after which the individual will be immediately released, unharmed, back into his own original territory. This will facilitate the scientific identification of the species once and for all. We all wait with 'bated breath.

Um, as far as I'm concerned if they manage to capture anything that would be the end of the question. Why bother releasing it? Keep the blasted thing!

Few believed in the platypus until someone captured a live one (not that I blame them I mean the platypus is pretty crazy). One live specimen would be the holy grail, why would they even conciser releasing it if they caught one?

 

[William Parcher]

Why bother releasing it?

It makes sense when you understand The Mind of Ed Smith and Strategies of Bigfoot Hoaxing. Bigfoot doesn't exist so you cannot possess a live specimen and you certainly can't show it to anyone. You can tell people that you did capture a live one and then you let it go.

The "we will release it" part is a necessary feature of the planned Ed Smith hoax.

 

[GT/CS]

That won't work because the two different DNAs won't blend. It will only look like contamination.

True, but I didn't say it would work. I said some believer or hoaxer will try it.

 

[GT/CS]

What I can say is that their intention is to temporarily capture a juvenile BF for the purpose of filming the team of credentialed scientists as they take blood, tissue and hair samples for testing; after which the individual will be immediately released, unharmed, back into his own original territory. This will facilitate the scientific identification of the species once and for all. We all wait with 'bated breath.

How does one expect to capture a juvenile bigfoot without mama bigfoot and papa bigfoot inflicting serious bodily damage on the capturers?

 

[LTC8K6]

How does one expect to capture a juvenile bigfoot without mama bigfoot and papa bigfoot inflicting serious bodily damage on the capturers?

Child size pork and beans.

 

[The Shrike]

How does one expect to capture a juvenile bigfoot without mama bigfoot and papa bigfoot inflicting serious bodily damage on the capturers?

Really not an issue if you don't believe in bigfoot yourself and your goal is simply to play the 'footers with a hoax.

 

[Weak Kitten]

It makes sense when you understand
The "we will release it" part is a necessary feature of the planned Ed Smith hoax.

Let me guess. When they do manage to capture one there will be a mysterious malfunction in their camera equipment. Or for some unknown reason not a single person present will have any skill with a camera or all have bizarrely shaky hands.

The leaders knowing it is a hoax would explain why they never bother to take the normal steps a scientist would take in trying to determine the existence of a new species. Things like figuring out what sort of food sources would be necessary based on similar animals and then examining if the locations this animal has been reported in have that level of food resources. There are already bears in many of those woods. If there are a lot of bears then there is no room, as far as food is concerned, for another large predator/scavenger.

 

[DennyT]

Lets assume there is a bigfoot.
We manage to get some blood off of something
(I remember an episode of Monster Quest. A cabin in the deep woods of Alberta was broken into a few times, usually through the front door. The man thought it was a bear. What he did was take a 3x3 foot piece of plywood, and screw in about 100 screws so the head was flush. He placed this in the front of the door with the screws up with the hope that anything that stepped on it (bear or bigfoot) would get hurt and scared off. There was some dried blood type of goo stuff in one of the threads of the screw. Lets assume we get a nice fresh sample off of one of the screws.)

If we get this nice fresh sample and test it, the test would be inconclusive, wouldn't it?
We have nothing to compare it to.
We can't look at it like we would a dog's sample and be able to nail it down as a dog...
Know what I mean?

I think you have identified one of the important components (and possibly the inspiration) of the forthcoming scam. Toss in a dash of the OJ Simpson mess, flavor with a naive DNA lab, and stir with an ex-cop of questionable ethics.

 

[William Parcher]

I think you have identified one of the important components (and possibly the inspiration) of the forthcoming scam. Toss in a dash of the OJ Simpson mess, flavor with a naive DNA lab, and stir with an ex-cop of questionable ethics.

But you haven't explained what it is that you think Paulides physically handed to Ketchum. She put that into her "machine" and out popped the result: B-I-G-F-O-O-T.

 

[SweatyYeti]

It wouldn't be inconclusive, it would be from an unclassified primate, or whatever bigfoot is.

Bigfoot, if real, would be a Primate. (Obviously)

 

[Mahaha]

This bigfoot stuff has always had me amazed.
Woo-woos can't even resort to the Goddidit argument, so what do they answer when one asks them the thousand reasonable questions that the existence of the bigfoot arises?

 

[LTC8K6]

Bigfoot, if real, would be a Primate. (Obviously)

I don't know how you'd know that. What you mean is that you believe it.

You don't know for certain that Patty is a real example and you can't be sure of the tracks. You might believe in those items, but that's far from good enough to proclaim that Bigfoot is obviously a primate.