• 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.
There is a new interview with Richard Stubstad via Robert Lindsay at Lindsay's blog. There appears to be a flame war in the works as David Paulides has commented with regard to Stubstad and his alleged contributions in the bigfoot dna adventures. This should be high drama not to mention comedy in the next few days.
 
David Paulides, who is very close to Texas veterinarian/DNA labber Melba Ketchum, releases some video from the Oct 1 bigfoot conference in Honobia OK, where Ketchum was a no show. Paulides reiterates his previous stuff, that Bigfoot is human, cites old newspaper accounts and tribal elders as sources and as much as says that, while he can't make the official announcement, there is no DNA evidence to the contrary. These dots are not very far apart and it seems reasonable to connect them: in her hundred-odd samples, Ketchum has only human DNA (besides the expected animals, of course).

What if anything she will try to make out of this is unclear. But, of course, the majority of bleevers would be willing to cope with this impending cognitive dissonance by casting aside the blatherings of Bindernagel, Meldrum, Krantz et al like so many used condoms, and grabbing on to "DNA", "language" and "intelligence" as proof of the existence of human BF.
See the video here (you have to scroll to the bottom of the list).
http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootvideo.html
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
That means the results were probably inconclusive, imo.
Click to expand...
I agree that would be the best stance for her to take. However...
She continues to indicate that she has positive results of some sort. So I think she is considering supporting Paulides' position. Perhaps she will give several alternative explanations.
 
Last edited:
Note on the "human" bigfoot theory: Robert Lindsay's blog seems to be suggesting that Dr. Ketchum is receiving very fresh samples of human DNA in a way not usually recommended by scientific protocol. Of course, he could be entirely wrong; perhaps David Paulides, who seems to act as her spokesman at times, will give us the inside story. If there is one. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
A site called Bigfoot Reference Guide has put up a section called Sasquatch Genome Project. I don't know when it was created. The only thing there at present is a sub-section devoted to Paulides and his organization:

North America Bigfoot Search was the original group that started theSasquatch Genome Project by finding Dr. Melba Ketchum and submitting samples that showed early results that were different than any other samples DNA Diagnostics had ever tested. NABS researchers continued to submit quality specimens from throughout North America and were one of the groups critical to the project’s success.
Click to expand...

http://www.bigfootreferenceguide.com/sgp/

What success would that be?
 
Last edited:
Aren't all DNA results different than those from all other samples unless the samples are from the same animal?
 
GT/CS said:
Aren't all DNA results different than those from all other samples unless the samples are from the same animal?
Click to expand...

In toto possibly so. But many people have identical mtDNA. Where I believe Ketchum has gone terribly wrong is to think that if a sequence isn't in GenBank it isn't human or any other known animal. That is the only way I can put together what we have seen and heard so far. So I think she will look rather foolish if she tries to get that published. I think, going by her past commercial success, Ketchum's goal was to develop a rapid test for Bigfoot DNA and apply for a patent. I obviously don't think she can.
 
BobbyO at the BFF posts this as a communication he received from Melba Ketchum:
Ok, for the sake of time ( and I hope all of you understand), I will answer everyone publicly here. I keep getting a lot of emails from everyone wanting to know the status of the project. Though I cannot give details or timing, I will assure everyone that all is well and we are continuing to move forward. Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". This is what we are doing. When we started this, I thought we would be finished in a few weeks, but instead as Sasquatch are known to do, they threw us curve balls even with their DNA which can be as elusive as they are. Thank goodness we are past that! As a result, we have assembled a renowned team, each of us with our own specialties to make this project "extraordinary". If everyone will hang in there, I promise it will be worth the wait. We have the proof, now just give us the opportunity to present it in a form that will even convince skeptics. Thanks so much for all of your emails and support. Best wishes to all.
Click to expand...
Translation:
I figured I better throw you a bone before I start getting more complaints in my BBB file.
I had to throw up my hands. It looked good in the beginning when Stubstad explained it to me but now it looks like he doesn't know a haplotype from a hole in the ground. It's very confusing. I haven't been able to put it all together into a paper that doesn't depend on one or two anecdotal reports ("Doc, I swear this came from a 9 foot hairy monster!"). I sent all my results to someone who knows a lot more about primate and population genetics than I (and Stubstad) do (AKA a derned skeptic), and they will get back to me on what it all means. Until then I'm at a standstill.
ps Nature-schmature...Paulides and I had fun in gay Paree on the money you sent in. Speaking as a vet, THE MAN IS A REAL "ANIMAL!" Thanks SOOO much! Beats the heck out of church camp in Oklahoma.
 
Last edited:
What if it turns out NOT that Bigfoot is a human, but that HUMANS ARE BIGFOOTS?!!??!

End of times anyone?
 
parnassus said:
BobbyO at the BFF posts this as a communication he received from Melba Ketchum:

Ok, for the sake of time ( and I hope all of you understand), I will answer everyone publicly here. I keep getting a lot of emails from everyone wanting to know the status of the project. Though I cannot give details or timing, I will assure everyone that all is well and we are continuing to move forward. Good science cannot be forced or quickly completed. If it is not extremely thorough, then it will all be for naught and any paper rejected outright. So, I ask you to be patient and understanding and realize that extreme scientific overkill is required in order to convince a world full of skeptical scientists. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". This is what we are doing. When we started this, I thought we would be finished in a few weeks, but instead as Sasquatch are known to do, they threw us curve balls even with their DNA which can be as elusive as they are. Thank goodness we are past that! As a result, we have assembled a renowned team, each of us with our own specialties to make this project "extraordinary". If everyone will hang in there, I promise it will be worth the wait. We have the proof, now just give us the opportunity to present it in a form that will even convince skeptics. Thanks so much for all of your emails and support. Best wishes to all.
Click to expand...

This sums up the pro Sasquatch bias involved. Those dastardly skeptical scientists who worked on Denisova had to use Extreme Scientific Overkill in their peer reviewed work to get acceptance of their findings. :rolleyes:
 
LuvGodzilla said:
This sums up the pro Sasquatch bias involved. Those dastardly skeptical scientists who worked on Denisova had to use Extreme Scientific Overkill in their peer reviewed work to get acceptance of their findings. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bleevers are divided into two camps:
extreme scientific overkill vs no extreme scientific overkill.
 
LOL tip o' the hat to Ed Smith, who took the bait immediately and reposted (at the BFF) my JREF unexpurgated version of the "translation"!
 
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