Bigfoot DNA

[calwaterbear]

Wait a minute, this makes no sense to me.

CWB is this how DNA samples are prepared????

Yup, believe it or not. You could put a tissue sample in a blender to start the process. Essentailly you are mechanically breaking apart the cells, so your chemicals can work on the cell membranes to break them down, to get at the DNA. On a big sample we use a blender (I do a beginning lab on DNA in my classes where we use either dog nuts or bananas, put em in a blender, then use salt, meat tenderizer, and dishsoap in a process that actually yields alot of DNA) . for a smaller sample you often just crush it up - like in a minature mortar and pestle.

for dealing with small amounts of DNA, particularly hair, all you need is a single hair, but in that case, instead of mechanically breaking apart the cells, you usea chemical digestion process that bhraks down the outside protein sheath of the hair, leaving you access to internal cells, which you then process.
The theory and work flow of how to get DNA is pretty simple. The devil is in the details!
CWB

 

[GT/CS]

Wouldn't they create a clean sample by cutting a portion from the center of the 'steak'?

 

[Mister Earl]

This is so far beyond "laughing" at I don't know what to do, Footers have hit a low I didn't think even existed.

I think I was at that point with the whole rubber-mask-in-an-ice-block hoax.

"IT'S THE PROOF WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR."

"No, it's just the wake-up call we know none of you will bother answering."

 

[calwaterbear]

Wouldn't they create a clean sample by cutting a portion from the center of the 'steak'?

If there really were a block of tissue, absolutely, but in looking at the photo of the supposed steak, it was nothing but a piece of hide, no tissue attached, thats why the ended up doing hair I believe. But I'm just speculating, these people really believe they need to be secrative about everything.
that in itself is hilarious, because they want so badly to get scientific validation, they go through all sorts of permuatations to try and appear scientific, but they violate the first premise repeatedly - that of being open and transparent.
In this particular case - the science was clear and accurate, and the written report provided the clarity! The only thing muddy about this effort was the sample - how it was collected, where it came from, how it was handled, all of those were and still are in question. But the results are clear and unmistakable. The DNA is from a bear,. And the sample provided it's own "provenance".
so now the believers have to deal with that, either by killing the messenger, or inventing new excuses and cover stories to allow themselves to continue to believe (which most of them do not truely believe, thats why they respond so strongly) - because results like this shake the foundations of their faith! and that would neam that they do not have "SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE". and "SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE" is what validates themselves as being special individuals!

So they flock back to the temple of melba, where they do not want Melba to release any data, because theyhave a visceral understanding that those data will lay the groundwork for another round of hope being crushed under the Bigfoot of reality (see what I did there - really clever eh!)
CWB

 

[DennyT]

...
It would appear that Ketchum stripped out the BEAR as contamination, and then proceeded to study the isolated SMEJA DNA in great detail until some supposed "anomaly" arose.

If these labs are correct, then the Ketchum study is a fraudulent failure.

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/statements-from-steven-streufert.html#moretop

One of the key questions was whether the Smeja sample (which by two independent analyses turns out to be bear plus Smeja) was one of the three complete genomes claimed by Ketchum to show an uncatalogued primate. Now, at the Bff, that question is answered; one of the guys who submitted the Smeja "steak" to independent labs says (emphasis added):

she [Ketchum] has claimed on radio that her results support an uncatalogued primate. And she claimed to me personally on the phone that Justin's sample was one of the three complete genomes that she had mapped. So I guess in that respect, I AM privy to that data (if you count that claim as data). Even Derekfoot will tell you that she has made the same claim to him, and Justin will tell you she made that claim to him, and her major financier will tell you he made that same claim to him.

And it appears that Ketchum did not run a sample of Smeja's DNA for comparison. Furthermore, Smeja strongly claims that the samples used by Ketchum and the two other labs came from the same "steak."
So, it appears that one of the three "uncatalogued' primate genomes claimed by Ketchum is that of Justin Smeja.

 

[Resume]

One of the key questions was whether the Smeja sample (which by two independent analyses turns out to be bear plus Smeja) was one of the three complete genomes claimed by Ketchum to show an uncatalogued primate. Now, at the Bff, that question is answered; one of the guys who submitted the Smeja "steak" to independent labs says (emphasis added):

And it appears that Ketchum did not run a sample of Smeja's DNA for comparison. Furthermore, Smeja strongly claims that the samples used by Ketchum and the two other labs came from the same "steak."
So, it appears that one of the three "uncatalogued' primate genomes claimed by Ketchum is that of Justin Smeja.

So . . . Justin Smeja is an uncatalogued primate? Has he been notified?

 

[Jodie]

Yes, Justin and Derek both told me that the steak was one of the three chosen for nuDNA sequencing over a year ago.

Of course Ketchum could have lied to them, I suppose a good story to go with the selected sample would make it either more or less believable depending on your perspective but it doesn't change the data.

I just don't get it. Impressing footers seems to be a low hurdle to strive for, the study hasn't received much publicity outside of the community to boost any kind of marketing scheme, and I have my doubts about her conclusions, or that a study was even done. I don't know what she hoped to accomplish by doing all of this.

 

[LTC8K6]

One of the key questions was whether the Smeja sample (which by two independent analyses turns out to be bear plus Smeja) was one of the three complete genomes claimed by Ketchum to show an uncatalogued primate. Now, at the Bff, that question is answered; one of the guys who submitted the Smeja "steak" to independent labs says (emphasis added):

And it appears that Ketchum did not run a sample of Smeja's DNA for comparison. Furthermore, Smeja strongly claims that the samples used by Ketchum and the two other labs came from the same "steak."
So, it appears that one of the three "uncatalogued' primate genomes claimed by Ketchum is that of Justin Smeja.

Smeja is bigfoot?

 

[DennyT]

If a person were to attempt to claim discovery of "bigfoot" DNA by knowingly or unknowingly taking advantage of the facts that each human has unique DNA, and very few complete human genomes are in public databases/banks, then that person should simply use anonymous human DNA, from specimens found in public places. That DNA will, by all odds, contain sequences not in public databases/banks, and, since the phenotype of the anonymous donor will never be known, it could be claimed that the unique sequences are characteristic of an "uncatalogued" hybrid animal, or a "bigfoot."

Ketchum, however, has apparently given the game away, by using DNA of what turns out to be a known human, whose DNA contains sequences not in public databases/banks, but is most definitely not a phenotypic "bigfoot."

Further, in advance of publication, she has stated that the Smeja sample is one of only three specimens which show "uncatalogued" sequences. What will she do now? withdraw the Smeja sample, thereby admitting the fallacy? and thereby admitting her failed reasoning on the other two samples, as well? or just try to bluff through it? on Facebook she says she says she isn't concerned....Wut?

 

[RedRatSnake]

And it appears that Ketchum did not run a sample of Smeja's DNA for comparison. Furthermore, Smeja strongly claims that the samples used by Ketchum and the two other labs came from the same "steak."
So, it appears that one of the three "uncatalogued' primate genomes claimed by Ketchum is that of Justin Smeja.

Today is a sad day all my hopes of this DNA turning out positive results have been dashed, my dreams gone, years of patiently waiting wasted, my confidence level in a brilliant women has been trashed, hundreds maybe thousands of dear and caring posts made in total support of the project have been in vain, I am left just a shell of the person I used to be.

I don't know if I can find the strength to go on any longer, such a blow, such a let down, "Bigfoot" where are you, why, why do you evade us so~

 

[AttorneyTom]

I still say in MHOP that the steak is overdone,badly presented, poorly served, and is way too furry !

It needs to be sent back to the kitchen and perhaps substituted for a pork chop or some ham ?

 

[jerrywayne]

So, it appears that one of the three "uncatalogued' primate genomes claimed by Ketchum is that of Justin Smeja.

So, does this mean Smeja is a Bigfoot? I thought they were supposed to be bigger than that? Or does it mean we now have proof of "America's Abominable Snowjob" (aka: The Ketchum Report)?

 

[calwaterbear]

we do have to remember that the 2 DNA studies use a different methodology. While Dereks lab appeared to use Short tandom repeats to identify Smeja (completely appropriate, this is the method used by the codis and other crime data bases) while Melba is insisting she ran complete genome sequences. So they would not be directly comparable.
It doesn't matter much, because if Melba ever releases the data, she will immediately be unmasked for being either:
Incompetent in her science
Fraudulent in her claims
or most likely - she will hit the daily double, being both incompetent and a hoaxer!

If a person were to attempt to claim discovery of "bigfoot" DNA by knowingly or unknowingly taking advantage of the facts that each human has unique DNA, and very few complete human genomes are in public databases/banks, then that person should simply use anonymous human DNA, from specimens found in public places. That DNA will, by all odds, contain sequences not in public databases/banks, and, since the phenotype of the anonymous donor will never be known, it could be claimed that the unique sequences are characteristic of an "uncatalogued" hybrid animal, or a "bigfoot."

Ketchum, however, has apparently given the game away, by using DNA of what turns out to be a known human, whose DNA contains sequences not in public databases/banks, but is most definitely not a phenotypic "bigfoot."

Further, in advance of publication, she has stated that the Smeja sample is one of only three specimens which show "uncatalogued" sequences. What will she do now? withdraw the Smeja sample, thereby admitting the fallacy? and thereby admitting her failed reasoning on the other two samples, as well? or just try to bluff through it? on Facebook she says she says she isn't concerned....Wut?

 

[GT/CS]

We'll soon read that the government stole her computer with all the files on it.

 

[Jodie]

Well it did get hacked.

 

[The Shrike]

A buddy of mine at the University of Oklahoma just let me know that the Oklahoma Science Museum is hosting some kind of event this month about bigfoot DNA, with special guests David Paulides and some other guy I'd not heard of. Tickets are something like $5 just for the lecture and $15 for museum tour and lecture. Should be lots of folks in the OKC Metro opening their wallets for this one, seeing as how bigfoots are wandering up and down their creeks to get to the Lucky Star Casino.

So . . . the paid lecture circuit is now underway prior to publication?

 

[DennyT]

Harvey Pratt and David Paulides will be presenting their bigfoot evidence, sightings, etc from Oklahoma, discussing forensic sketches, bigfoot DNA and relating their findings in David Paulides' books, Missing 411. This will be at the Oklahoma Science Museum (Oklahoma City), main auditorium, January 19, 2013, 3pm-5pm. Both speakers will be signing their books after the event. Come early as seating will be at a premium.

http://www.sciencemuseumok.org/contact_us.html
So is this, like, the James Inhofe brand of science?
Paulides may simply be capitalizing on the Ketchum publicity/controversy, etc. Did he instigate her press release in anticipation of his book tour?
I doubt he would presume to talk about Ketchum's results; most likely he would be talking about his long-held contention that previous DNA studies have pretty much all shown human results. He is selling his own books.

 

[DennyT]

Well it did get hacked.

I believe that Ketchum indicated the server was "hacked." We have no confirmation of that spin. That would have nothing to do with her computer, would have affected many people, and likely only incidentally affected her website and email.

It is interesting that her website is still down. Are we to believe that an internet provider/web host just can't get a server up? or is it more likely that there is some other explanation for her site disappearing?

She'll probably just use Facebook...no monthly charges.

 

[Jodie]

What does David Paulides know about bigfoot DNA to be lecturing about it? So is your buddy going to contribute to the extortion and attend? It's a shame we can't send a geneticist, or someone familiar enough with sequencing, in there to put Paulides on the spot with technical questions.

 

[LTC8K6]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/64512_10151156669080951_598727873_n.jpg

Bigfoot revealed- come hear Harvey Pratt and David Paulides talk about the facts.