Bigfoot DNA

[jerrywayne]

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.

Good point. Rejoinder would be that we do have evidence now, in the form of DNA. However, the DNA is alleged to be non-human/human hybrid. This would be seriously unlikely to occur in nature, unless the paternal line (in this case) was a close, allied species, which doesn't appear to be the case.

Just like virtually everything else about the sasquatch saga, nothing here makes any sense. So, either our human understanding of the world is seriously at fault, or our human imagination can led us to believe the fantastic and erroneous.

 

[MikeG]

Jodie, generations are normally taken as equating to approx. age of first breeding. It is fairly commonly assumed to be 20 years in the case of humans, so your generations figure should be roughly 750, assuming ......well, we all know what is assumed..........

Mike

 

[RedRatSnake]

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

Buckle in ~ I predict a long wait for any kind of real paper. Hey ! Maybe she can make a Comic Book out of all this.

 

[mikeyx]

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.

Might just as well, a little birdie tells me, her russian friend is the one doing the peer review. If true, thats pathetic.

 

[mikeyx]

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.

cult is cult

 

[mikeyx]

Its been my pseudo theory from the start that
ketchum was thrown into this thing to discredit it from the beginning and so far she has not done a start to prove me wrong.

 

[Drewbot]

How Bigfooters publicize DNA.
http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/11/david-paulides-releases-bigfoot-dna.html


How real Biologists publicize DNA.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...sea-snake-is-actually-two-look-alike-species/

Notice the difference?

 

[DennyT]

Wait, I know this is getting convoluted and I'm probably missing something, but what connection does Burtsev have to Lynne?

...

Her name is actually Robin Lynn(e) Pfeifer.
This suggests she owed him one:

Dr. Meldrum expressed that he felt the [Russian] conference was “orchestrated” with “publicity stunts” to promote tourism for the region. He was dismayed and perhaps a bit angry that the Russian group “exploited his credibility” for their means.

In addition, Meldrum was put off by a Michigan woman, Robin Lynn Pfeifer, who claims that a family of Bigfoot was living on her 10 acre farm. He described how she, as a guest invited by Burtsev who believes her story, intruded into the scientific discussion. Meldrum admitted to confronting her over her lack of evidence for her outrageous story (which included her noting the creatures’ favorite food was blueberry bagels). Morehead was blunt, telling her that her kids were obviously playing a trick on her. Yet, disturbingly, Burtsev takes her account as typical in the U.S. and believes this kind of habituation was commonplace all over Russia as well!

He actually visited her home:

Burtsev said that he visited [Robin Lynne] Pfeifer's home for a week in June but did not see any of the Bigfoot creatures. The next step, Pfeifer said, is to record the creatures' unusual vocal sounds.

 

[calwaterbear]

Aboman, welcome to the forum. not sure If i can help out, but i will try. first of all, we are talking about DNA from the nucleus, which Dr. Ketchum seems to indicate that she has a complete genome from 3 individuals. I find that exceedingly hard to believe. first of all, you are talking about 10 billion base pairs here. I really doubt that she would have the equipment, the computer power, software, technical expertise, and computer storage available to her to allow those 10 billion base pairs to be stored and compared.

I may be wrong on that, but it seems pretty far fetched to me. instead what I think she has (if anything, remember she has not provided a single base pair of data yet, nor a paper outlining her techniques and methods and analysis and conclusions), all we have at this point is a press release from an amateur PR person, who apparently plagerized part of my last post and put it up on Melbas facebook page.
Attn. Ms. Lynne, please either give proper credit to your sources of information, or remove them from Dr Ketchums facebook page!

anyway back to my point, I think the most likely scenario is that she had the DNA run by several commerical companies that specialize in large data management. i suspect she would have used a company called "23 and me" as well as a few others. They were not going after producing whole genomes, but were instead focussed on SNP's. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. essentially there are many sites in your DNA that seem to mutate more than others, and many of these involve a single base (nucleotide) change in the DNA. Those are easily identified because they will have chains of nucletides before and after the SNP that are the same across the board (I'm obviously simplifying this here).

Modern technology has lead to the development of synthetic DNA cartridges that essentially look through a DNA sample and look for about 1/2 a million different SNP sites, and catalog those sites, and their differences.
I suspect that is what they really have - not a complete genome, but a catalog of SNP for each of the 3 unique samples. SNP's are used widely in human genomics, looking at drug affinities and efficacy for example,and has lots of use to population geneticists. They have been looked at in using to differentiate species, and have been sucessfull in doing that in some cases.

So i suspect from this collection of 1/2 million SNP' Melbas crew selected a small suite of them, and will contend that this particular group of SNP will be unique to Bigfoot!

My problem with that whole idea: all it shows is individual variation. and just because you cannot find that individual variation in any on line data base, that does not make it non human. Gen bank and other available databases are not comprehensive for the total of humanity. They are very small samples of humans, and were never intended, nor are they capable of capturing or illustrating the complete genetic diversity of humans. looking at all potential combinations of SNPs A very small subset of the 1/2 million SNP's on a chip could mathmatically exceed the number of humans on the planet. i would have to work out that number, but essentuially a tiny subset of those half million SNP sites will give you individuality.
So its all about what sites or markers you chose, how you statistically treated them, and how those statistics drove your conclusions.

we just don't know! we are in the same place we were 2.5 years ago, when Melba first started saying they were close to releasing the paper, and just had to do final edits. 2 and a half years, no change!


hoaxing? i doubt it. at least on her side, I do think however that some unscrupulous individuals may have tried to find a donor of DNA - human, who they did not think would be represented in genbank. someone of a small ethic heritage, or with religious beliefs that preclude most of their group from donating DNA. That would skew the chances that the sequences would appear to be unique!

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?

 

[MikeG]

A............I think the most likely scenario is that she had the DNA run by several commerical companies that specialize in large data management. i suspect she would have used a company called "23 and me" as well as a few others. They were not going after producing whole genomes, but were instead focussed on SNP's. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms. essentially there are many sites in your DNA that seem to mutate more than others, and many of these involve a single base (nucleotide) change in the DNA. Those are easily identified because they will have chains of nucletides before and after the SNP that are the same across the board (I'm obviously simplifying this here).............

Many thanks for that very interesting explanation CWB. I ask the following question entirely out of ignorance!

Could it be that most or all humans have these SNPs in the same place, but that other species don't? If so, would that (the finding of SNPs in an unexpected place) of itself not be diagnostic of a non-human (HSS) genome?

Mike

 

[DennyT]

Excellent post cal.
If one listens to that halloween 2010 internet radio interview by Ketchum, it seems pretty clear that she believed that if sequences weren't in online databases they weren't from a human. I am mobile right now but will try to get that link posted later today. I think that is the key to what she has reportedly called "angel DNA;" it's just human DNA that isn't in the databases.

 

[DennyT]

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

Dear Mike:
Thanks for the feedback. Did you read my post? Because it actually starts with:

I think that she is referring to sequences that weren't in GenBank...

Sorry if you don't like informed speculation; there is a lot of it on the internet. That is kind of what people do. You have even correctly identified it as 'carefully constructed conjecture." So neither you nor anyone else should be deceived by what I wrote.

I've been waiting, as you say, for a long time, and Ketchum hasn't published her data and now I doubt she ever will. That press release pretty much seals the deal; she may get a magazine article, but not a reputable scientific journal article. She has now made some scientifically irresponsible statements; you would agree, wouldn't you? and people are being misled by it. Perhaps this is similar to the long lasting mis-impressions created by the MonsterQuest show about DNA found after an "assault" on a cabin at Snelgrove Lake, Ontario, findings that were supposedly "scientific" but were never published.

I'd like to think I have provided an alternative way of thinking about what Ketchum has said. I think my thoughts are labeled in a satisfactory manner:

"I think that...."

and you seem to agree.

You are, however, to put it gently, "in error" when you say that I have said that I know "exactly...exactly....what Ketchum has."

Aren't you? Please acknowledge that you made that up, and that I did not say that.

I'm not sure I get what you see as the downside to carefully constructed (and clearly labeled) speculation. If you see that as equivalent to the claims of those who believe in a flesh and blood "bigfoot," well, I guess you have a right to even a not-so "carefully constructed speculation."* ....as long as you label it, "I think that..."

p.

 

[Sonny2]

So, Calwaterbear, they came over here and plaigerized one of your posts?

Listen up, any Footers reading this (or read up, if you will) - when you have to steal stuff from scientists (Calwaterbear is a DNA scientist) in order to try to make your delusions look legit, you're part of a cult.

A CULT. Get.help.now.

 

[The Shrike]

Not to sound like a fanboi or anything, but parnassus seems to me to have been accurate in his suppositions about this debacle since the very first time I read the name "Melba Ketchum."

 

[JLord]

David Paulides was on Coast to Coast AM last night with host George Knapp. He talked about this big breakthrough in bigfoot DNA.

"He explained that, as a result of a five year study, his colleague has been able to "unlock a method to get to the DNA itself and how to test for it" within possible Bigfoot hair samples. As a result of this development, Paulides said, the findings indicate that Bigfoot is a "very unique homo sapien" species and that part of the DNA is "nowhere in the billions of documented DNA ever seen." He stressed that this testing has eliminated the possibility that Bigfoot are either Neanderthals or large primates and actually reveals that they are "thinking, breathing, intellectual people that are quite different" from humans."

I followed the thread here about the Patterson tape for quite a while and I am reasonably interested in bigfoot stories, but I hvaen't been following the DNA angle at all. As someone who doesn't have a background in biology, and who hasn't got the time to read through this massive thread about bigfoot DNA, I was wondering if someone could give me a summary of what is going on from the "skeptic" viewpoint. I heard the bigfoot viewpoint last night and of course this is touted as a major finding and a groundbraking discovery. I have a feeling that some people here would have a different opinion.

 

[Resume]

I heard the bigfoot viewpoint last night and of course this is touted as a major finding and a groundbraking discovery. I have a feeling that some people here would have a different opinion.

What would be groundbreaking would be a monkey.

 

[Sonny2]

JLord, others may summarize it better, but here's my succinct summary:

Veterinarian (who hangs with Footers and claims her own encounters) has obtained supposed Bigfoot DNA, announces years ago she's testing it (though her credentials for doing so are questionable) and will soon have a scientific paper published (with peer reviews etc.) proving BF exists.

She stalls and keeps everyone riled up with announcments here and there so they don't lose interest (as she also in the meantime obtains some pretty good funding in the 6 digits). Her PR person is a Footer, she fires her and hires another Footer, and all the while FB posts are made to keep people on edge, some by her PF person supposedly posng as Ketchum. She disappears and resurfaces, having lost her property, and her DNA testing lab (which specializes in animal pedigree testing) is frequently turned into the BBB for fraud.

Her supposed results are announced before the peer review process or scientific publication, saying one side (the mtDNA) is human and the other is unknown (thus the angel DNA reference) and is some kind of apelike hominid that's not in the gene bank.

The Footers go wild, thumbing their noses at the Skeptics.

The Skeptics are so far patiently waiting for the whole thing to collapse, speculating that Ketchum is using DNA from someone who's ethnic group etc. isn't in the gene bank and thus Ketchum can claim whatever she wants.

And of course those who refuse to learn more about DNA and who believe in Bigfoot will just run with it off the cliff of ignorance, and then after free-falling for a bit, bounce off the rock of self-satisfaction, never feeling the impact of either because of their own euphoria, while others note the blood and just shake their heads in amazement and amusement.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Many thanks for that very interesting explanation CWB.

But it was speculation, which here you are fawning over it, and with parnasus are berating him for it.

You aren't in the little 007 secret spy network yet, but there is one of sorts, and some of the information is known before the network figures out how to blame the information on someone else, yet provide the source data anyone can then look up themselves. Some of it we just have to sit on. Look at the heat KK took for announcing the existence of the suit. Some of it is just tawdry details that are extemely amusing but you just don't want to be the one putting it out in public. Not to mention that the same can be done to any of us.

There isn't any formal organization to it. When I get shared something, I don't pass it on and try to help where I can with what skills I can lend. The point of it though is to try getting information out or getting people on the right track with what may seem on the surface to be speculation sometimes, but by getting it out there you have a lot of eyes looking in the right direction that can dig up the key pieces to firm it up as established fact.

Watching Parn at work has been better than episodes of Columbo. So actually, no - some things you don't have to wait on until they come out publicly. The reason some things are coming out publicly is that someone is doing some detective work and sort of reverse-engineering a way to lead others to "discover" it.

Parn didn't say he knew something for a fact, and was careful to say what he thought. There's two things to keep in mind about this. First, the bad guys like to conceal what they are up to and then blame everyone else for having to try figuring it out. If they were honest, everyone would know exactly what they are doing. But since they're lying they put us in the position of needing to make informed speculation. Don't be blaming the wrong people for this. Allow for people working out "draft" propositions so that others can improve upon them.

Don't be so negative about inquiry of this nature too because it also includes some entertaining detective work, and the people doing it are being very careful about it. This again is only necessitated because of the deceit perpetrated by the bad guys. But you don't have to wait for others with this kind of inquiry. You can be a JREF 007 spy. Should you for example have coffee with a key ex-husband or ex-wife, you aren't going to post that here. But you'll have an idea about who to share it with because of what people are posting on, and the two of you might be able to combine notes and get information out to others by clever means.


007 Memberships: $450 annually. Explorer Patch One $100. Officer Regalia $250. Newsletter $22.50 per issue. Make checks payable to The Bunny Ranch Corporation, Reno Nevada. It's our nonprofit charitable umbrella, also supplying field agents to ongoing operations.

 

[StankApe]

Meanwhile, one of the members here (i can't remember who) emailed the russian guy who said Ketchum's paper had been rejected by USA science journals and he CONFIRMED that it would be published in a Russian Journal instead.

Now, when you tell footers this is a sure sign that her paper is trash science, they hand wave and/or put their fingers in their ears.(or they claim the Journals are in on the conspiracy against Bigfoot)

Seriously, IF her data was sound and verifiable , every journal in the country would have been all over it. But it wasn't. (well, the DNA may have been sequenced properly, but it's fairly obvious her conclusions aren't backed up by the data). So it's gonna go to that bastion of empirical data and critical thinking: The Russian Bigfoot Community!

 

[LTC8K6]

David Paulides was on Coast to Coast AM last night with host George Knapp. He talked about this big breakthrough in bigfoot DNA.

"He explained that, as a result of a five year study, his colleague has been able to "unlock a method to get to the DNA itself and how to test for it" within possible Bigfoot hair samples. As a result of this development, Paulides said, the findings indicate that Bigfoot is a "very unique homo sapien" species and that part of the DNA is "nowhere in the billions of documented DNA ever seen." He stressed that this testing has eliminated the possibility that Bigfoot are either Neanderthals or large primates and actually reveals that they are "thinking, breathing, intellectual people that are quite different" from humans."

I followed the thread here about the Patterson tape for quite a while and I am reasonably interested in bigfoot stories, but I hvaen't been following the DNA angle at all. As someone who doesn't have a background in biology, and who hasn't got the time to read through this massive thread about bigfoot DNA, I was wondering if someone could give me a summary of what is going on from the "skeptic" viewpoint. I heard the bigfoot viewpoint last night and of course this is touted as a major finding and a groundbraking discovery. I have a feeling that some people here would have a different opinion.

It really sounds exactly like what calwaterbear explained in his post above.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8797418&postcount=2889