Last edited:
-
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
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
When I first read your post I was like WTF how can that be ~ Someone paid someone to put that info there. That was just Awesome !!!!
calwaterbear
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2012
- Messages
- 248
to be fair guys, everythinmg I said was accurate, and could be verified, and did involve the DNA identification of a new species. who knew bigfoot could shape shift into mothra!
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
And its definitely very distinct from human DNA. I'd say that we've conclusively established that these 'squatch are not men in suits!
When I first saw your post, I was torn between thinking you'd gone insane and thinking your account had been hacked. Now that I see the evidence for this sasquatch, though, I'm finally convinced.
(Maybe if we keep this discussion in vague enough terms we can still reboot the confusion 'mongst the true believers.)
I've been away, and so haven't been following events. Could someone please help me.
It appears that some of you are saying that the Ketchum study is imploding. I think I am covering most of the options with the following, so could anyone who knows what is going on please tell me which of these scenarios is the most likely:
1: There were no samples submitted, and no analysis done
2: Samples were submitted, but no analysis done.
3: Samples submitted, some analysis done, nothing "interesting" found
4: Samples submitted, analysis done, legal wrangling/ infighting
5: Samples submitted, analysis done, awaiting publication
Mike
It appears that some of you are saying that the Ketchum study is imploding. I think I am covering most of the options with the following, so could anyone who knows what is going on please tell me which of these scenarios is the most likely:
1: There were no samples submitted, and no analysis done
2: Samples were submitted, but no analysis done.
3: Samples submitted, some analysis done, nothing "interesting" found
4: Samples submitted, analysis done, legal wrangling/ infighting
5: Samples submitted, analysis done, awaiting publication
Mike
At this point, based on a large number of anecdotal reports, we can say that the paper is 9 feet tall, covered with hair, is very intelligent, very curious, extremely elusive, and no part of the paper has ever been found.
In which case shouldn't we expect a whole lot of lawyer activity? I haven't heard of any yet........
Mike
It seems as though she took in a lot of money (hundreds of thousands) and samples. It is very likely that she ran at least a few samples by screening tests that her lab could perform, and that she had at least a few tests (that her lab could not do) run by other labs. The exact makeup of the testing is unclear although it involved sequencing of mtDNA for some samples and some nuclear DNA genes for some samples.
"Interesting" can mean many different things. Firstly, known non-human animal DNA is not very interesting so lets dispense with those samples. Let's just discuss the "primate" DNA.
Every human being (except identical siblings) has unique DNA. Very few, relatively, are in GenBank. Does that make DNA results of most every human being "interesting" ? Well, yes, if it is your own DNA; but specifically in the "bigfoot" sense, no.
It is apparent that the late Richard Stubstad convinced her that at least a few of these mtDNA results were "interesting," in the bigfoot sense, in large part because they were not identical to any sequences in GenBank. There was a lot of balderdash about "Eves" and Iberian glacial refuges and SNP's in nuclear genes etc, but it seems that these were just a lot of shiny objects. She has never shown anything that isn't human and never said she has anything that isn't human, and specifically ruled out a hybrid from her results as of 2010. Furthermore, she has not described any consistent DNA findings from one specimen to the next that would indicate a close relationship between individuals. While she may have found all this to be "interesting" in the bigfoot sense, I don't think that any journal would find it interesting, unless it were written as a "negative for the supposed bigfoot" paper. She has not indicated that she was writing a negative paper.
What results obtained after 2010 she might have, we just don't know. She has supposedly (see below) written that the 2010 summary of her data has been withdrawn.
As far as we know, she has no legal constraints on publishing whatever she has found.
There is no proof that she has ever submitted an article for publication, let alone that it has been accepted. As far as I know, there is no proof that she has never claimed that it was submitted. Matt Moneymaker has claimed that she submitted a paper, and it was "handed back" ie rejected. MM may have access to the person who was funding Ketchum's work, so his statement has to be considered as possibly true.
We actually know very little else; a lot of stuff was posted on Facebook, but my impression is that at least one other person had the ability to post there. I have a suspicion that this other person may not have always identified herself when posting, thus making her posts appear to have been written by Ketchum. Some people claim to have communications from Ketchum but there is no significant documentation that has been made public, that I am aware of.
"Interesting" can mean many different things. Firstly, known non-human animal DNA is not very interesting so lets dispense with those samples. Let's just discuss the "primate" DNA.
Every human being (except identical siblings) has unique DNA. Very few, relatively, are in GenBank. Does that make DNA results of most every human being "interesting" ? Well, yes, if it is your own DNA; but specifically in the "bigfoot" sense, no.
It is apparent that the late Richard Stubstad convinced her that at least a few of these mtDNA results were "interesting," in the bigfoot sense, in large part because they were not identical to any sequences in GenBank. There was a lot of balderdash about "Eves" and Iberian glacial refuges and SNP's in nuclear genes etc, but it seems that these were just a lot of shiny objects. She has never shown anything that isn't human and never said she has anything that isn't human, and specifically ruled out a hybrid from her results as of 2010. Furthermore, she has not described any consistent DNA findings from one specimen to the next that would indicate a close relationship between individuals. While she may have found all this to be "interesting" in the bigfoot sense, I don't think that any journal would find it interesting, unless it were written as a "negative for the supposed bigfoot" paper. She has not indicated that she was writing a negative paper.
What results obtained after 2010 she might have, we just don't know. She has supposedly (see below) written that the 2010 summary of her data has been withdrawn.
As far as we know, she has no legal constraints on publishing whatever she has found.
There is no proof that she has ever submitted an article for publication, let alone that it has been accepted. As far as I know, there is no proof that she has never claimed that it was submitted. Matt Moneymaker has claimed that she submitted a paper, and it was "handed back" ie rejected. MM may have access to the person who was funding Ketchum's work, so his statement has to be considered as possibly true.
We actually know very little else; a lot of stuff was posted on Facebook, but my impression is that at least one other person had the ability to post there. I have a suspicion that this other person may not have always identified herself when posting, thus making her posts appear to have been written by Ketchum. Some people claim to have communications from Ketchum but there is no significant documentation that has been made public, that I am aware of.
Mike,
to which post are you responding, and to what point?
In the best traditions of the JREF, if you are interested enough to challenge, then you should be interested enough to read the thread. I think you will find the evidence there or links to it.
Just to be sure that you have your shoes on the proper feet: The original claim to be considered is Ketchum's claim that she had DNA proof of the flesh and blood existence of the so-called "bigfoot" of modern folklore. It seems clear that she took the money and ran. We have no proof that she did any tests or wrote any papers. Several have speculated that there may be no paper. That is fair to speculate.
She has been the subject of legal action. Had you read the thread AT ALL you would know that.
If you are talking about some poor stiff "bigfoot" sample submitter trying to a)find her, (which no can) and having done that, b)file a $200 suit at great cost, then c)traveling and providing proof and thus d)winning the case and then e)collecting from someone who lives in another jurisdiction and has no assets. That is what happens when you trust confidence men. You have no recourse. Witness the poor lady who lent Roger Patterson some 700 dollars and had a signed witnessed document. She couldn't recover a dime. Never did. Not a dime. And he lived right there in her community, had a family there, and made thousands on his Bigfoot movie. She never got a flamin dime. Not a penny. Not one red cent. Lots of people tried to recover on his bad checks, with his name and signature on them. They never got paid.
So, yes, legal action has been taken on real property. The rest is just smoke. Will Daddy Bigbucks try to collect on his $250,000? Maybe, but if she sent him some reports, that is likely all that was required....what can he claim? what can he prove? Has Meldrum done any better than Melba? has anyone?
to which post are you responding, and to what point?
In the best traditions of the JREF, if you are interested enough to challenge, then you should be interested enough to read the thread. I think you will find the evidence there or links to it.
Just to be sure that you have your shoes on the proper feet: The original claim to be considered is Ketchum's claim that she had DNA proof of the flesh and blood existence of the so-called "bigfoot" of modern folklore. It seems clear that she took the money and ran. We have no proof that she did any tests or wrote any papers. Several have speculated that there may be no paper. That is fair to speculate.
She has been the subject of legal action. Had you read the thread AT ALL you would know that.
If you are talking about some poor stiff "bigfoot" sample submitter trying to a)find her, (which no can) and having done that, b)file a $200 suit at great cost, then c)traveling and providing proof and thus d)winning the case and then e)collecting from someone who lives in another jurisdiction and has no assets. That is what happens when you trust confidence men. You have no recourse. Witness the poor lady who lent Roger Patterson some 700 dollars and had a signed witnessed document. She couldn't recover a dime. Never did. Not a dime. And he lived right there in her community, had a family there, and made thousands on his Bigfoot movie. She never got a flamin dime. Not a penny. Not one red cent. Lots of people tried to recover on his bad checks, with his name and signature on them. They never got paid.
So, yes, legal action has been taken on real property. The rest is just smoke. Will Daddy Bigbucks try to collect on his $250,000? Maybe, but if she sent him some reports, that is likely all that was required....what can he claim? what can he prove? Has Meldrum done any better than Melba? has anyone?
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 453
I agree. TheMelba witnessed frolicking BF families which blows her entire claim to credibility.
I think Parn is too generous by far. TheMelba found, or had steered her way, a gullible fool with money to spend. In that scenario, why run any tests at all? Fake a report, send to the gullible fool, request more money. Repeat.
I happen to think that you folks are probably right about the fate of the Ketchum study, but you (nor I) have produced no evidence in support of the assertions made. This could be seen as judging others by one standard, and acting yourself (ourselves) to another. You (we) rightly require advocates to produce evidence in support of their claims, but could be said to be basing these claims of your (our) own on pretty flimsy "evidence".
I have always had a problem with the logic of this argument.
Substitute the word "zebra" for BF, and then tell me what the problem is. What is the issue with having witnessed the animal you are studying? Plenty of zoologists do that every day of the week. If Dr Ketchum has unimpeachable evidence in support of the existence of these creatures, then I can see no problem with her having claimed to have seen some of them.
Of course, if she (or anyone else) doesn't have the DNA evidence she claims, then we can take the personal observation reports as just another anecdote. But the anecdote itself has no (logical) influence on the voracity of her claim.
In my view, of course.
Mike
I have always had a problem with the logic of this argument.
Substitute the word "zebra" for BF, and then tell me what the problem is. What is the issue with having witnessed the animal you are studying? Plenty of zoologists do that every day of the week. If Dr Ketchum has unimpeachable evidence in support of the existence of these creatures, then I can see no problem with her having claimed to have seen some of them.
Of course, if she (or anyone else) doesn't have the DNA evidence she claims, then we can take the personal observation reports as just another anecdote. But the anecdote itself has no (logical) influence on the voracity of her claim.
In my view, of course.
Mike
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
Are you Serious ? You think she really witnessed real Bigfoots.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,758
- Status