Bigfoot DNA

[LTC8K6]

No, I have no idea whether Sykes will reference Ketchum's work.

All I am suggesting is that the sensible position with regards to the existence or otherwise of sasquatch is to wait until both of these DNA papers have been published. In my view, of course. People leap to condemn Ketchum for her crass comments and her religious beliefs etc and go on to say, in terms, that her study is rubbish and that there is no such thing as BF, but don't factor Sykes into the equation.

This is a proper scientist doing (presumably) proper work. What if? Just what if? Some made-up-minds haven't left themselves any wiggle room at all in the event that Sykes comes up with something. Other made-up minds on the other side of the fence assume, without good reason, that their views will be vindicated.

I surely can't be the only person here sitting on a fence twiddling my thumbs and saying let's wait until the work is published.

Mike

Sykes is doing proper work.

Ketchum is doing garbage.

I see no reason to wait for a report on garbage.

We've seen it time and time again from footers.

"PROOF"!!!! WE HAVE PROOF!!!!

Followed by absolute garbage, or crickets, or "steaks", or a bad suit stuffed into a freezer...

 

[GT/CS]

Here's an article about someone who performed DNA testing in 2005.
http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfoot_dna.html

 

[RayG]

My guess, she is having another bigfoot enthusiast review the DNA and not a major university or etc.

That's typical bigfoot science. Once the other bigfoot enthusiast has given their thumbs up, it will be declared peer-reviewed.

RayG

 

[RedRatSnake]

It's bigfoot. You do understand that it's just a joke right? There is no real bigfoot except for in the mind. Ketchum does no have bigfoot DNA, and neither does Sykes. There is no bigfoot to produce it. (yes it is that simple!)

River is my forum Buddie cause we think alike ~ Plus he plays a sweet Guitar

It really is very simple ~ No Bigfoot = No Bigfoot DNA or any other cockamamie evidence that has been thrown out there to convince the sheep. It's TV Show's ~ A little short lived fame, Tax free forest adventures & Merchandise. Etc! Etc.

 

[jerrywayne]

Here is an article from the land of Roger Patterson. Doesn't add much:
http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121130/LIFE/211300316/-1/NEWSMAP

 

[River]

River is my forum Buddie cause we think alike ~ Plus he plays a sweet Guitar

It really is very simple ~ No Bigfoot = No Bigfoot DNA or any other cockamamie evidence that has been thrown out there to convince the sheep. It's TV Show's ~ A little short lived fame, Tax free forest adventures & Merchandise. Etc! Etc.

Thank you kind sir! (about the guitar) A true love certainly, and one I'm always thankful to share.

The DNA claims made by Ketchum seem to even have most of the believers in some doubt. Most seem "on the fence" about it until she releases data or the paper passes peer review of some sort. (which will happen? either?) My prediction is, this will turn into a big promotion even more than we have seen. There will be some type of published goods you can buy with the "paper" which will be nonsense, and none of the true data will be released. There will be no reproduced results or shared samples, and a certain amount of footers will still support the nonsense. (though most already see the crash coming!)

I don't even think that most "believers" truly believe. They just play along.

 

[River]

Note Ketchums title in this television interview.

 

[WildBackdunesMan]

Sorry, not sure if this has been posted - have to chase my little one around, but...

Ketchum's DNA company has an F rating from the better business bureau and more than two dozen complaints filed against it. On top of that, they are not using proper scientific protocol.

Read this:

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/11/like-omg-scientists-have-sequenced-bigfoot-dna/

 

[GT/CS]

And compare the photos.
Are we sure this is the same person?
I wonder how long ago the early photo was taken!!!

 

[GT/CS]

So Ketchum thinks bigfoot is a human hybrid yet she saw one that was 10' tall. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

The post that Arla put on my wall is true. I know her, but have not been to OK since 1995. My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don't ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason.

- Dr. Melba Ketchum
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/dr-melba-ketchum-explains-her-bigfoot.html

 

[Sonny2]

(QUOTE from GT/CS above)

My sighting is not a big deal...Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me.

Yes, your sighting was not a big deal, except to bring you into the warm bosom of the Bleevers. You are now a KNOWER, Melba, one of them. Good marketing strategy, BTW, though it throws your credibility to the wind.

I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason.


Oh, there are other reasons, and we all know that, so no need to lie. Ask Wally Hersom. Ask all those blogs that you probably follow, basking in the attention. And I'm sure you have something in the wings that will bring you even more cash. Your friends and advisers are wll-known hoaxers.

Or is it starting to all blow up on you? Hoaxes have a tendency to do that, you know.

 

[RayG]

My sighting is not a big deal.

So says a scientist after observing an undiscovered, unclassified, 10' bipedal North American primate.

RayG

 

[Zippy Omicron]

I have been reading all the postings in this thread, including the ones subsequent to my own.

Everyone is contributing worthwhile comments, data, and URL links to relevant information.

IF (and that's a big if) this mythical creature could be brought out into the light of scientific scrutiny (and reality), I would applaud the effort. But I don't think that is going to happen with the Ketchum study. But I will, to borrow Parnassus' metaphor, wait until the baseball game wraps up.

Parnassus, as a matter of curiosity, what "inning" do you think that this Bigfoot DNA subject/study is in?

 

[DennyT]

ZO,
The game never "wraps up." It just goes on. Some spectators come in to the stadium, stay a while, and leave. Some fans have been there for 3 or 4 years, some 10 or 20. I don't know what inning we're in. Hundreds. Thousands.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

All I am suggesting is that the sensible position with regards to the existence or otherwise of sasquatch is to wait until both of these DNA papers have been published.

Without a type specimen the DNA is meaningless. Even "novel" DNA means nothing without a specimen. You can't prove a negative with DNA either.

Whereas the record over the last thousand years has amply attested to bigfoot as myth, and nothing in these DNA studies will change that.

The minimizer "all I am suggesting" is the means of framing an unreasonable statement as having the appearance of being reasonable.

Ignoring all the evidence we do have, and instead "waiting" on studies that can prove nothing about the existence or nonexistence is pretty unreasonable logically.

 

[Jodie]

Without a type specimen the DNA is meaningless. Even "novel" DNA means nothing without a specimen. You can't prove a negative with DNA either.

No DNA is good enough, it was good enough to establish the Denisovans. The difference lies in what is claimed. In this case the majority would need a type specimen because Melba and others are claiming this thing is living with us today.

 

[RedRatSnake]

ZO,
The game never "wraps up." It just goes on. Some spectators come in to the stadium, stay a while, and leave. Some fans have been there for 3 or 4 years, some 10 or 20. I don't know what inning we're in. Hundreds. Thousands.

like the way you wrote that I am on about 7 or 8 yrs into this, started on the original BFF and although I have taken a vacation once or twice I never really left the building.

This DNA thing will go on until some new crack pot idea comes along, I know it, you know it, folks here know it, and even the Footers know it. I just hope this next thing has some sort of a new twist to it so we can progress and not go backward in any way. I like my 8' tall 500 pound hairy upright walking gorilla just the way it is.

Long live The Monkey​

 

[RedRatSnake]

Without a type specimen the DNA is meaningless. Even "novel" DNA means nothing without a specimen. You can't prove a negative with DNA either.

Whereas the record over the last thousand years has amply attested to bigfoot as myth, and nothing in these DNA studies will change that.

This has been an argument from the start as we all know, Footers don't get it cause they don't want to hear anything they think can or will be a negative. Again it is a dodge to keep the dream alive.

 

[xtifr]

Melba's DNA claims made the front page of Slashdot! Unfortunately, she had to share an article with a report about a team from North Korea that claims to have found a unicorn's lair!

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/s...ologists-have-found-unicorn-lair-in-pyongyang

 

[eerok]

No DNA is good enough, it was good enough to establish the Denisovans. The difference lies in what is claimed. In this case the majority would need a type specimen because Melba and others are claiming this thing is living with us today.

Quite right. Considering the blueberry muffin claims and all the rest of the craptacular whoppers that I've read over the years, I want to see a Bigfoot on a talk show or forget it.