• 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.
I once published a joke (actually a true funny story from my professional work) in what passed for a professional journal. They even edited it to make it funnier than my version. So I by no means rule out the possibility that Ketchum could publish some sort of paper on this stuff in some sort of journal, even though there are a number of obvious problems with it. Her biggest obstacle may be her insistence on saying something about Bigfoot, drawing some conclusion, that is not warranted.

What she has is simply a series of specimens collected in a variety of outdoor settings by a variety of methods, persons and criteria, none of which can be verified; she determined the species from which these samples came. This might be of marginal interest to an anthropology journal or a forensic journal. If she insists on dragging Bigfoot into it as more than background, she may end up in one of those speculative journals or a third rate rag that isn't really peer reviewed.
 
Last edited:
Here's a possible scenario:

1. Submit paper or abstract to a peer-reviewed scientific journal or congress.
Outcome- Not accepted.
Response- Say it was not accepted and leave floating in the air the "because it was too ground-breaking" explanation.

2. Decrease quality demands and submit the work to some obscure journal/congress, maybe even not related to antropology or biology.
Outcome a- Not accepted.
Response a- Say it was not accepted and leave floating in the air the "because it was too ground-breaking" explanation.

Outcome b- Accepted.
Response- Say it is a small step to build a new perception of bigfootery by mainstream science, count on your footer minions to pass the word, bask in the praise of general footer public. Pretend it is not ignored by most academics.

3. Go one step lower on the ladder and publish it in a fringe subjects-oriented journal like Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Outcome - Accepted.
Response- Pretend it is not ignored by most academics. Count on your footer minions to pass the word, bask in the praise of general footer public.

4. Publish a book about your bigfoot theories. Don't even try to look for a science-oriented publishing house; go for a house used to publish fiction and fringe subject material.
Outcome - Count on your footer minions to pass the word, bask in the praise and the money of general footer public. Pretend it was not ignored by most academics.

5. Appear at some fringe subject documentary. Show how good is your work and evidence, blame conservative mainstream science for being slow to accept major paradigm shifts. Count on your footer minions to pass the word, bask in the praise of general footer public, note the show will be good advertising for your book.
 
I think we can safely rule out the Monsterquest-documentary option, unless Melba Ketchum is an ultra-narcissist. That would be pretty much like shooting herself in the head, professionally. So far she has avoided any big Rick Perry moments, but there seems to be a stubborn streak in her that may not serve her well in this context. She has issues with customers already, and lawsuit issues, in an arena where reputation and the ability to testify credibly is very important.

I think it is interesting to consider who might review her paper; I really can't think of anyone offhand who would be appropriate and sympathetic to the sort of paper she wants to publish. Undoubtedly she would ask for her pals at A & M but one or more of them may have been in business with her. Meldrum has no expertise in the subject matter and wouldn't be a believer in a homo sapiens Sasquatch. Sarmiento is a thought but i dont think this is his area either. Primate geneticists would chuckle, I think, at the idea of designating a subspecies on the basis of a newly discovered SNP in a gene famous for variability. She could try to go back to a journal in which she published a technical paper, but she has no type specimen (here I'm dismissing the "Sierra kill") with which to validate her new test.

I doubt that she will give it up until she gets at least three rejections. Perhaps it will end up in The JSE. I don't see Meldrum putting it in his online journal...Disotell would resign, I imagine.

I think we can rule out a book, although her pal Paulides may write one.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Meldrum and some others recently create an organization that some speculate may be used for bigfoot research peer-review purposes?
 
Yes, the Relict Hominoid Inquiry. It is supposedly an online only journal with some degree of peer review. The editorial board includes Todd Disotell, a prominent primate DNA expert and BF skeptic. I was amazed to see his name there and imagine it won't be there for long. There is no contributed content there at present.
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/editor.shtml
 
Another post has come up on Robert Lindsay's site, basically appears to be confirmation that Stubstad is his primary source, as we see the same kinds of errors in fact and logic. And the same personal attacks on Ketchum. I know Drewbot will be pleased to see that he/they have posted more dead skunk info. My question is whether Ketchum and Stubstad parted ways because of a personality clash or because she decided he was not as smart as he thought he was.

ProTip: Use the words "bigfoot", "incredible", "specimen" and "Biscardi" together only with great caution (if at all), and be prepared for peals of laughter, showers of over-ripe produce, and serial letters of rejection from scientific journals. It is only by observing this rule (and by the grace of god) that I have been able to publish papers.
 
Last edited:
To elaborate: It seems that the three samples that Stubstad was involved with seemingly all came via Biscardi, and one of them( the skunk in the pipe sample) came from a JC Johnson, who is also aligned with Biscardi. The reason why this is important should be clear: Stubstad's (flawed) statistical arguments are based on his assumption of random events, ie that there is no connection between these samples, which supposedly came from widely separated locations.

The blueprint for a Bigfoot DNA hoax is to find an isolated human population which is not yet represented in GenBank and obtain samples from a number of members; then represent the samples as having come from diverse and widely separated locations. This "mislabeling" could occur at any stage, from collection to aggregation to lab to analysis to reporting, without the complicity of others in the "chain." Non-disclosure agreements would aid in such an effort. The DNA report will then show a number of individuals supposedly from all across the country, with shared mutations which are not in GenBank and thus can be touted as "not-quite-human."
 
Last edited:
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. And the fact that Biscardi is involved says all I need to know. He was involved somehow in the "Bigfoot toenail" also, if my memory is correct.
 
Ketchum on Facebook seems to be saying she has submitted a paper:

"Thanks so much to all of you for all of the holiday wishes and kind words. I couldn't have done this without your moral support and all those whose sample submissions made this possible. You guys and gals are great! I sure hope I can make you proud here shortly. We'll have to see how and when the peer review comes back. With the amount of data we have amassed, I am very optimistic that the outcome of the peer review will go well."
 
Last edited:
We all know that this will end in one of two ways.

A. It will get rejected by a mainstream science journal, with screams and aneurisms about science being biased, and it never had a chance with the bigoted reviewers.

B. It will get accepted by a Crypto-journal, or some other journal that Bindernagel gets his tripe published in. Bigfooters will praise the work. It will go unnoticed by everyone else.
 
"Hence, many elites of the scientific world are having serious discussions about the bigfoot/sasquatch topic for the very first time."

(emphasis mine)

Apparently, Moneymaker is unaware of the 1960–61 Himalayan expedition to find the legendary yeti, financed by World Book Encyclopedia. Sir Edmund Hillary led the expedition, and it featured celebrity zoologist Marlin Perkins.

In modern parlance, this would be something like Google (?) funding a month's-long expedition headed by . . . Lance Armstrong? and featuring . . . Jeff Corwin?

Perkins devotes a 16-page chapter of his autobiography to this expedition, and it's interesting how he obliterated yeti mythology (e.g., prints in the snow, "scalps", etc.) as early as 1961, yet some of these old chestnuts persist in the mind of hopeful believers today. (For those keeping track, that was 50 years ago.)
 
3 points for knowing the contents of Marlin Perkins' autobiography. What's the title? "My lemur peed on Johnny Carson"?
 
No, that would've been more original. It's "My Wild Kingdom."

If you can remember Marlin's dry, uninspiring delivery and magnify it tenfold, that's how this book reads. Hes' got this deadpan, matter-of-fact writing style that is better suited to a biography of drying paint, yet when you actually consider what he's writing about, the events chronicled are truly extraordinary. (In a lot of ways, Steve Irwin was the "anti-Marlin" in that he excelled at making the most mundane things seem exciting.)

Marlin was a pioneer of radio and television, an actual zoologist who curated three major zoos in his career, and perhaps the last of the great gentleman explorers. If he was with us today, we'd probably also consider him a danged fine skeptic, judging from his description of how he and Hillary took great lengths to study ablated footprints and even create their own "yeti scalp".
 
clayflingythingy said:
Is there wailing and nashing of teeth over at the BFF?

Now that the DNA hopes have been dashed, will the BFF bleevers continue to go down the "bigfoot is closely related to humans" road, or will they turn back onto the "bigfoot is an ape road"?
Click to expand...

The DNA hopes have not been dashed, imo.
I think that Ketchum-Paulides are trying for the idea that the DNA which looks human is actually bigfoot, we just haven't reached the level of DNA analysis that will prove it. ie there are tiny differences. It may get published in Parade Magazine or the Peoria Press-Statesman.

That may fly with many of the bleevers. Depends on Meldrum. If he gives it a thumbs down, it won't fly. But I think he will cautiously suspend judgement while signing more books.
 
clayflingythingy said:
Is there wailing and nashing of teeth over at the BFF?

Now that the DNA hopes have been dashed, will the BFF bleevers continue to go down the "bigfoot is closely related to humans" road, or will they turn back onto the "bigfoot is an ape road"?
Click to expand...

They are living in a box, Totally in tunnel drive so it won't matter what the DNA results are, Bigfoot is still a go.
 
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