• 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.
William Parcher said:
If there is a red light thumbs down it means that your hair didn't come from an unknown species of great ape. Accept that and don't play the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy card.
Click to expand...

Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.
 
southernyahoo said:
Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.
Click to expand...


I'm sure they would have to offer an explanation of why it was rejected.
 
southernyahoo said:
I hadn't thought of the reviewers being interested in doing it, but don't see why if they were, they would hold Ketchums paper until they could do it.
Click to expand...


You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence.
 
southernyahoo said:
Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.
Click to expand...


Has Ketchum already informed you that your hair sample is from an undocumented species of great ape?
 
William Parcher said:
You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, there were multiple labs involved in her study, and they had independently done the sequencing to back check what she had found.
 
southernyahoo said:
I don't think it would be in her paper if she had any other opinion on the sample.
Click to expand...


So she hasn't actually confirmed anything with you personally?


As I understand it, there were multiple labs involved in her study, and they had independently done the sequencing to back check what she had found.
Click to expand...

Then it's ready to be peer reviewed by people that she hasn't chosen. Then replicated by labs that she hasn't chosen.
 
"Yeah, 3 of the skin tags retrieved from the samples did not match or "NO MATCH FOUND" according to computer analysis. Weird, huh? As far as I can tell, I can't match the sequencing codes exactly to any animal/human. This can be due to a number of reasons, however, the skin tags appeared in really good shape. I'm not officially allowed to say that they belong to a squatch but another explanation is highly unprobable given the location, time of year, and the appearance (size, shape, color, thickness, etc.)."
Click to expand...

I find that quite suspicious. 3 of the tags? This suggests there are other tags for which there were results. What happened with the other tags?

Not allowed to say it's a squatch? What kind of garbage is that? Of course he can't say it's a squatch!

He can't possibly say it's a squatch, even if it actually is a squatch. He has nothing to reference it with.

Highly unprobable? Given the appearance? What sort of clown technician was this?

I don't think I have ever read a more comical hair analysis.

Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal.
 
Update: We attended the Honobia Bigfoot Festival on the weekend of Oct. 3,4,5 where one of the speakers was Dr. Jeff Meldrum. We explained the issue we were having with getting the hair identified and gave him a sample of around a dozen hairs and are standing by for his findings. We will update this page when we have his results.
Click to expand...

What were Meldrum's findings?
 
LTC8K6 said:
I find that quite suspicious. 3 of the tags? This suggests there are other tags for which there were results. What happened with the other tags?

Not allowed to say it's a squatch? What kind of garbage is that? Of course he can't say it's a squatch!

He can't possibly say it's a squatch, even if it actually is a squatch. He has nothing to reference it with.

Highly unprobable? Given the appearance? What sort of clown technician was this?

I don't think I have ever read a more comical hair analysis.

Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal.
Click to expand...

Well that tech may well have been right, it wasn't Dr. K.
 
southernyahoo said:
Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.
Click to expand...

A rejection would be addressed to Ketchum, not you. Will she give a you a copy or instead give you her interpretation?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Nope. Not my samples, not my responsibility to get them properly tested.

Of course, given where they were found, I wouldn't see any reason to test them.
Click to expand...

Darn, I would have thought you would know a good one.

It doesn't matter where they are from, there is no place good enough for bigfoot right? What matters is what this physical evidence belongs to, and why it would be published if it wasn't something of great interest. It must belong to some known right? That would be an easy ID for any specialist in the field of DNA.
 
LTC8K6 said:
What about the rest of the tags? What did they match?

Does "NO MATCH FOUND" actually mean anything? It doesn't, right?
Click to expand...

I think I sent that tech 5 hairs. One was short and very fine, more like an undercoat hair. The tech mentioned one hair that tested 62% positive for fox. That didn't make any real sense, it could still have been anything. The three tags were likely the longer dark wavy hair you can see in the picture. they were producing sequences but not matching anything they were compared to. That left one hair which the tech went ahaead and ran the test on with the same result.

The no match result only means that for some reason nothing was comparable. That is something I'm hoping Dr. K can make sense of.
 
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