Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
If you have 111 samples then this hypothetical creature isn't elusive.

If you have 111 eyewitnesses then this creature isn't elusive.

When you are seen regularly by people (including the main author) you are not elusive.

Oh and by the way, they aren't commonly referred to as Sasquatch. They are commonly referred to as Bigfoot and occasionally called Sasquatch.
Click to expand...

If the source of the samples is hypothesized and not known, does the rest of the paper mean anything...

You could just as well put mothman or aquaman in there if the sources of the samples are hypothesized...
 
Meh. There just isn't any such thing as a "Bigfoot expert". How can you be an expert of something you have no substantive proof of? That's like saying I'm a football expert just because I've carefully examined cleat marks on a gaming field.
 
I am reading that as he is agreeing with her, she has found real honest to goodness humans, all that in only 5 years, wonder what she can do in 10?

Tim :D
 
LTC8K6 said:
If the source of the samples is hypothesized and not known, does the rest of the paper mean anything...

You could just as well put mothman or aquaman in there if the sources of the samples are hypothesized...
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is the glaring problem with Meldrum's "ichnotaxon" paper. The cornerstone of his argument is "Patty."
 
Resume said:
Here is one PhD that validates Melba Ketchum's (DVM) paper.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/02/dr-melba-ketchum-quotes-real-phd-about.html#moretop
Click to expand...

Seems to have no background in genetics/DNA testing/analysis; by his own admission he didn't/couldn't evaluate the DNA. What sort of review is that??? LOL. He is just parroting what Melba said. Seems to be one of Melba's old time pals from nearby Louisiana. Would not be a qualified/ suitable peer review (obviously).

The Scientist:
The website for the DeNovo Journal of Science was setup on February 4, and there is no indication that Ketchum’s work, the only study it has published, was peer reviewed
Click to expand...

It appears that Ketchum cannot document her claims/tales that her paper was peer reviewed.
 
Last edited:
Here are a couple key phrases.

This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.
 
tsig said:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, but it does "waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'", in the famous words of Randall Munroe. (Munroe was speaking of correlation vs. causation, but the same principle applies.)

Calwaterbear is reasonably justified in thinking that Sykes has not gone off his rocker. Heck, Cal himself has offered to test samples for people, so the mere fact that Sykes has done the same is hardly going to convince Cal that Sykes is now a True B'liev'r.

We'll know soon enough, but I expect that Sykes is taking the opportunity to throw a little solid science at some folks who rarely encounter such things. I expect him to talk about how DNA testing works. I expect him to mention BF only in carefully chosen, purely hypothetical terms. He's not going to offend them by saying BF doesn't exist, but he's carefully not going to say it does. Then he'll collect his speaker's fee, and depart, with everyone happy.

Yes, any number of respected elder scientists have gone crazy in the past. But the plural of anecdote is not data. As a percentage of all respected elderly scientists, that number has a whole bunch of zeros after the decimal point. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on Sykes not being crazy. At least until those fateful words, "the evidence is inconclusive, but I'm sure we'll find BF soon" fall from his lips. ;)
 
xtifr said:
I expect him to mention BF only in carefully chosen, purely hypothetical terms. He's not going to offend them by saying BF doesn't exist, but he's carefully not going to say it does. Then he'll collect his speaker's fee, and depart, with everyone happy.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly the problem with some "mainstream experts" who get involved with bigfootery. To the faithful and the unscrupulous, noncommittal statements such as you're alluding are the manna that sustains them in the desert of critical thinking.

For the bigfooters, not saying bigfoot doesn't exist gives them way more mileage than not saying it does. They can milk statements like that for years.
 
William Parcher said:
Only if he says that Bigfoot exists. He might say something like "I have no opinion on the existence of Bigfoot" or "Bigfoot may exist".




We believe in opposite things.
Click to expand...

Once again, using his hypothetical interprtation as being verified by other scientists, how does that make you different from Mulder? Right now Mulder insists that bigfoot exists despite no evidence. You are saying that it won't matter what Sykes produces or how sound it might be, there is no way it will even remotely provide a smidge of any kind of evidence for bigfoot......I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference in attitude between the two of you. Obstinancy is an EOE trait.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
If the source of the samples is hypothesized and not known, does the rest of the paper mean anything...

You could just as well put mothman or aquaman in there if the sources of the samples are hypothesized...
Click to expand...

If there is still bone or tissue available to verify I would think so, but if there isn't, I can't see how it would mean anything.

Supposedly it is very easy to create synthetic DNA. I don't know if Melba would have access as a vet to purchase human stem cells for research, but that would be a way to start.

The simplest explanation is that she has misidentified human DNA or that she is flat out lying about her analysis.
 
At some point some of you here might want to consider actually helping out here. instead of sitting around postulating and hypothesizing, why not do some actual research, do some actual checking of what Melba claims? why is that so hard?

I can't believe no one here has figured out the whole story with the "2 journals and buying one and prosecution by the scientific community etc. she posted that crap a week ago, and was on her soap box last night on the radio repeating that crap.

The problem for her is it is demonstrably easily proven false. The whole time line of the 2 jounal BS is loaded with fraud and deliberate deciept, and the vast majority of you guys ignore that! easily verifiable, easily !
I don't expect the majority here to be conversant in DNA, but that has been taken care of by a number of well researched "reports" primarily posted on BFF, or in blogs referenced on BFF.

In the mean time, looking at Melbas statements and can they be verified, thats something anyone can do! takes a little desire, and a bit of bulldog, thats it!

I was completely suprized by the reactions in BFF and JREF when Melbas paper came out! BFF contrary to my expectations, immediately set out to look at the paper and examine the claims.
JREF was filled with a bunch of little boys weeing all over themselves as they made "bold predictions" not backed by any justification.

Two guys here took the time to figure it out! took probably 10 emails and maybe 4 - 6 hours, I realize thats way to much work for alot of you!
to bad the rest of you are willing to waste huge hours here breaking your arms patting yourself on the back for parroting each others witty repartoire, and spouting each others pet hypothesis. While 2 or 3 guys here actually practice scientific inquiry, investigative research.
I've been sitting here for a week now, waiting for someone to figure it out! so far, 1 guy has it nailed, and the rest of you sit here and preach to your hand selected choirs! try doing some science guys, you might find out it is fun, rewarding, enlightening, and empowering!
CWB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom