RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
My God Man ! Are you insinuating that footers actually think over what they do for the long term.
~ lol
-
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
My God Man ! Are you insinuating that footers actually think over what they do for the long term.
~ lolJodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
I don't think anyone that graduated from a vet program could be that stupid, Parn. So in essence she is claiming that the second coming of Christ has showed up just in time for the end of the world (according to some Mayan Calendar woo meisters) and he is bigfoot, aka the nephilim...........please tell me the majority of footers aren't buying this? I think Melba needs to relocate to Russia after this.
Sonny2
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 669
LOL - only if you consider her peers to be scientists. At this point, I think they're Footers, as the science comunity is likely to think she's nuts.
she isn't a scientist really, she's a vet who did pedigree testing for horse/dog owners.
Heck, they way she's managed this entire affair would have her tenure dumped and her name discredited BEFORE she even published any paper. No University wants to be associated with someone who handles the concept of peer review like it's a game of CLUE!
Heck, they way she's managed this entire affair would have her tenure dumped and her name discredited BEFORE she even published any paper. No University wants to be associated with someone who handles the concept of peer review like it's a game of CLUE!
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Supporters of "habituation" claims. Its the sort of stuff with such an enourmous wackiness level that well, you can understand what I mean.
Sure, being a scientist by no means is the same thing as being immune to wacky beliefs. If you keep these beliefs away from your science-related work, is OK, usually.
But when someone tries to use science to back a wacky belief, well, I think his/hers "scientist" title can be questioned.
I didn't say she was stupid. I would say she was in error, if she wrote the press release. We really don't know the author of much that has been attributed to her.
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
Before we tag her as Queen Woo, if we ignore everything but what she has publicly written about the DNA study, it seems she is saying that Bigfoot is a cross (10s of thousands of years ago) between modern humans and an hominin that is not archaic Homo sapiens, neanderthal, or Denisovan. Since we do not have DNA of other hominins, the paternal DNA of Bigfoot is hominin, but unknown hominin.
Now this in itself is incredible for many reasons, granted, but not in the same league with speculations of angel/human mix, or ET/human mix, or of the Revenge of the Nephilim, etc.
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
We are all smart in our own way, no one can be on top of everything that's why we make mistakes, just cause she has a degree in anything don't give her any more street smarts than a drug dealer.
Sonny2
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 669
I just visited the Ketchum thread over on BFF. It's kind of sad, really. They're vilifying science and saying even if the data is good, nobody will pay attention because science has a vested interest in keeping Bigfoot down, since it's been poo-pooing it for 50 years.
Man, big old ugly science standing there with its jackboot on Bogfoot's neck.
Kind of an ugly scene in more ways than one.
Man, big old ugly science standing there with its jackboot on Bogfoot's neck.
Kind of an ugly scene in more ways than one.
Sonny2
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 669
I haven't read thorugh this whole thread, so maybe someone's addressed this before:
By saying BF is the result of a human female and a non-human male, isn't Ketchum just making the mud deeper? Now, instead of having no evidence for BF, we also have no evidence for yet another group, that which was BF's daddy way way back. We now have two types of missing creatures instead of just one. Two cryptic types of creatures that left no bones, no fossils, not a shred of any kind of verifiable evidence. What happened to BF's ancestor group and why no evidence of it?
The plot thickens and seems to make even less sense.
By saying BF is the result of a human female and a non-human male, isn't Ketchum just making the mud deeper? Now, instead of having no evidence for BF, we also have no evidence for yet another group, that which was BF's daddy way way back. We now have two types of missing creatures instead of just one. Two cryptic types of creatures that left no bones, no fossils, not a shred of any kind of verifiable evidence. What happened to BF's ancestor group and why no evidence of it?
The plot thickens and seems to make even less sense.
Aha, so it is most likely that Robin Lynne, the person who corrected Burtsev, was actually the one who leaked the story to Burtsev.
Hilarious!
Wait, I know this is getting convoluted and I'm probably missing something, but what connection does Burtsev have to Lynne?
TheMelba's last (fired?/quit?) PR person, Sally Ramey is the one with the Burtsev connection as far as I can tell:
thecryptocrew.com/2012/06/bigfoot-in-tennessee.html
What we should be asking is why is Melba recruiting her PR people from a pool of habituators?
This is not my area at all so please forgive my ignorance, but Calwaterbear should be able to answer...
Is it possible that Ketchum has hoaxed 'the unique' (aka angel) bits of the nuDNA? As in if she releases her data (here I'm assuming she would release raw data), could she have edited bits to show something 'weird'. Those bits would be the angel/BF DNA in her paper obviously.
Then when nobody is able to replicate her findings they A) don't have real BF samples or B) don't have access to her (patented?) markers to identify said BF DNA?
Is it possible that Ketchum has hoaxed 'the unique' (aka angel) bits of the nuDNA? As in if she releases her data (here I'm assuming she would release raw data), could she have edited bits to show something 'weird'. Those bits would be the angel/BF DNA in her paper obviously.
Then when nobody is able to replicate her findings they A) don't have real BF samples or B) don't have access to her (patented?) markers to identify said BF DNA?
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
And over there, they are saying we are the ones to be pitied. We contribute nothing, are closed-minded, etc. Funny, all way round.
We will see, what we will see.
marlborough
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 80
Not too long ago, they were insisting that skeptics would be eating crow once the report was released.
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
It does not make sense to have the level of mosaicism she claims if the last event happened 15,000 years ago. If you assume a 50 year life span then that is 300 generations ago. I'm not even genetically close to my own relatives 50 generations ago. It seems like the female bigfoot mtDNA would have bred back in over that amount of time if anything like this was even remotely possible sans bigfoot with another species. We don't see that in other animal hybrids, it's just stupid sounding to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
My weaving it together is original, but if she is talking about Angel DNA and follows some of the woo stuff then that has to be what she is getting at, she is supposedly very religious.
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 4,341
Pretty shrewd.
If they've made themselves popular with bigfoot, they're going to be a smash hit with the public at large. Bigfoot is a tough crowd to draw.
Parn, you really are a classic.
You are prepared (and have been for a very long time, to give you your due), to say exactly........exactly........what Ketchum has got and what she has found, despite having absolutely no supporting evidence. You apparently know more than she does about what she has found in DNA results that she has seen but you haven't. Hubris.
You concede this yourself by admitting that "we have no data on that". Here's the news.........you have no data on any of it. None. What you have is carefully constructed conjecture.
Now, it is possible you might be right, but nobody, least of all you, will know that until the paper is published, and the DNA is examined by others. In the meantime, you are just as guilty as your beloved "bleevers" of jumping the gun and pontificating without facts.
I'll say it again. I think the wise course of action now is to wait for the publication before jumping to any conclusions whatsoever.
Mike
- Status