-
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
The Shrike
Philosopher
Mulder as Meldrum, eh? At least that would explain the blind deification . . .
mikeyx
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,568
Funny in concept but I beleieve it when I see it, and yes know it was a joke.
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
Can anyone break this down in layman's terms, How would anyone know what Sasquatch DNA is ?
Ergo, I believe (but do not know) that all three of the samples tested for MC1R are from extant sasquatch (pl.). This conclusion is based on far more information than merely the MC1R sequence. This only added more confidence to my statement that sasquatch exists as a living, extant hominid, obviously very close — but certainly not identical to — any tribe or race of extant modern humans — most likely as more than one subspecies or haplotype.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/bigfoot-news-november-21-2011/#comment-69253
Ergo, I believe (but do not know) that all three of the samples tested for MC1R are from extant sasquatch (pl.). This conclusion is based on far more information than merely the MC1R sequence. This only added more confidence to my statement that sasquatch exists as a living, extant hominid, obviously very close — but certainly not identical to — any tribe or race of extant modern humans — most likely as more than one subspecies or haplotype.
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/bigfoot-news-november-21-2011/#comment-69253
mikeyx
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,568
I read something to effect of Tom Biscardi has done the most for bigfoot, and I moved on
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
Drew could you explain that a bit i just don't get this DNA lingo
Thank you
Thank you
This is just what i have predicted for months. All the primate DNA is modern human. To a reasonable person, that means it came from a modern human, either from a hoax, contamination by the collector, or simply a modern human specimen shed innocently by a hiker, hunter, etc. But the bleever assumes a priori that the samples came from a Bigfoot, just as if it came from a body on a lab table. So, to them,whatever primate DNA is found must be that of a Bigfoot. If that is true (so goes their logic) then there must be some part of this DNA that distinguishes a modern human from a modern human bigfoot. So the bleevers seize on either
1. anything at all unusual in the human DNA e.g. An uncommon haplotype, a sequence not in GenBank
Or
2. Anything identical or even similar, found in several supposedly "independent" DNA samples; of course there is no way to know whether samples are actually independent.
(If one wanted to maximize the illusion of bigfoot DNA, one could choose a family from an isolated population eg Bantu, Hupa. One could then collect blood, hair or tissue from them, and then mail them in from various widely separated places. )
Or, failing either of these,
3. Asserting that there are "invisible" secrets in the DNA which will only be detectable when science learns more about DNA.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Human DNA? Bigfoot is apparently back where it started.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/fresno_bee1958.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/fresno_bee1958.htm
I still don't understand why this is so revealing because we all know that bigfoot has always been human.
In fact, the most famous bigfoot in history is human, and we can still get DNA from her if Bob H would agree to it.
In fact, the most famous bigfoot in history is human, and we can still get DNA from her if Bob H would agree to it.
Last edited:
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
LMAO ~ That was good 
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
A bunch of posts have been split to Abandon All Hope. Please, stick to the topic of the thread which is Bigfoot DNA, not each other, and please do not import arguments from other forums. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LashL
Looking at the stuff that Robert Lindsay has posted, it is very clear that his source is Richard Stubstad. It seems that Ketchum is focussed on the nuclear DNA MC1R gene, not surprising as this is one of the genes that determines hair color, and is part of the testing she sells to animal owners. When she sent this out for sequencing, it seems to have been (like the mtDNA) modern human, with a single nucleotide polymorphism not found in GenBank. Now the story becomes quite murky...according to Lindsay/Stubstad, there may have been two early samples with the same SNP. Subsequently, it seems that Ketchum assumed that this polymorphism is the Bigfoot marker, and likely has developed (and filed for a patent on) a rapid Bigfoot DNA test kit similar to what she has apparently done for dog and cat genes (and has embroiled her in a lawsuit).
She has supposedly identified some 20 samples as sharing this Bigfoot marker.
Now, if the "reference" samples are the three that Stubstad paid for, there are a couple of major problems: firstly, they apparently came by way of Tom Biscardi.
Secondly, the samples are from:
-The toenail found by an old geezer
-the "skunk in the plastic pipe" scene
-the Erickson project
Of these, only the third ?may claim to have some direct (video) evidence that the sample came from a Bigfoot. And apparently Ketchum is at legal loggerheads with Erickson over some contractual non-disclosure issue, and Erickson is trying to improve his credibility in a personal financial crisis. So publication of the Erickson data may be problematic.
It seems clear that Stubstad is doing his level best, using Lindsay, to undermine Ketchum, while still preserving his own credibility (?!) as he mounts a competing project using some European (?!) lab. The irony is that it seems that it was Stubstad who originally led her down the garDNA path.
At any rate, hilarity ensues.
Lindsay is only too happy to publish all sorts of personal digs, innuendo, and gossip column tidbits about Ketchum's personality, Bible-thumping, and bed partners, while Stubstad innocently wishes her luck from the comments section.... Too obvious, Richard.
Back to the Bigfoots: if indeed Ketchum has found large numbers of modern human individuals with the same unique SNP, then I think these samples are, as I indicated in a prior post, merely members of an isolated population of modern humans. Native Americans would be the immediate guess, perhaps Hupa, possibly some other tribe with whom one of the Bigfoot profiteers has had extensive contact.
Would this stuff be publishable? To paraphrase a comment about grand juries, you could get some journal to publish a ham sandwich. I would know. Lol. Some speculation on that later.
She has supposedly identified some 20 samples as sharing this Bigfoot marker.
Now, if the "reference" samples are the three that Stubstad paid for, there are a couple of major problems: firstly, they apparently came by way of Tom Biscardi.
Secondly, the samples are from:
-The toenail found by an old geezer
-the "skunk in the plastic pipe" scene
-the Erickson project
Of these, only the third ?may claim to have some direct (video) evidence that the sample came from a Bigfoot. And apparently Ketchum is at legal loggerheads with Erickson over some contractual non-disclosure issue, and Erickson is trying to improve his credibility in a personal financial crisis. So publication of the Erickson data may be problematic.
It seems clear that Stubstad is doing his level best, using Lindsay, to undermine Ketchum, while still preserving his own credibility (?!) as he mounts a competing project using some European (?!) lab. The irony is that it seems that it was Stubstad who originally led her down the garDNA path.
At any rate, hilarity ensues.
Lindsay is only too happy to publish all sorts of personal digs, innuendo, and gossip column tidbits about Ketchum's personality, Bible-thumping, and bed partners, while Stubstad innocently wishes her luck from the comments section.... Too obvious, Richard.
Back to the Bigfoots: if indeed Ketchum has found large numbers of modern human individuals with the same unique SNP, then I think these samples are, as I indicated in a prior post, merely members of an isolated population of modern humans. Native Americans would be the immediate guess, perhaps Hupa, possibly some other tribe with whom one of the Bigfoot profiteers has had extensive contact.
Would this stuff be publishable? To paraphrase a comment about grand juries, you could get some journal to publish a ham sandwich. I would know. Lol. Some speculation on that later.
Last edited:
The Shrike
Philosopher
I guess I was wrong again: bigfoots really do hunt for skunks in agricultural fields by chasing them into plastic drainage pipes and punching holes through the pipe on either side of the skunk's location - all without leaving their footprints in the soil. What a fool I was!
My own personal feeling is a real Bigfoot would have had the size, lung capacity and strength to blow that skunk out of that pipe like a spitball.
I could be wrong... For example, I would have thought that the Syracuse head basketball coach would have noticed his assistant bringing a young ball boy along ON ROAD TRIPS. But I guess I would have been wrong....
Last edited:
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,758
Crossin a farm field late one night,
he should have looked left
and he should have looked right.
He didnt know where them Bigfeets are
got caught in a pipe and there you are.
YOU GOTCHER DEAD SKUNK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PIPE, DEAD SKUNK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PIPE, STINKIN' TO HIGH HEAAVEN.
Sorry Louden Wainwright III.
Why would a fast bigfoot chase a skunk into a pipe? it could easily catch it in noman's land between the pipe and tree line.
he should have looked left
and he should have looked right.
He didnt know where them Bigfeets are
got caught in a pipe and there you are.
YOU GOTCHER DEAD SKUNK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PIPE, DEAD SKUNK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PIPE, STINKIN' TO HIGH HEAAVEN.
Sorry Louden Wainwright III.
Why would a fast bigfoot chase a skunk into a pipe? it could easily catch it in noman's land between the pipe and tree line.
I think perhaps the Bigfoot tried to suck the skunk up through the pipe and it got stuck. I could be wrong on this.
- Status