Bigfoot DNA

[RedRatSnake]

try doing some science guys, you might find out it is fun, rewarding, enlightening, and empowering!
CWB

And extremely boring ~ It's Bigfoot not Anthropology, there simply is no science in BF, never was never will be, it's just a long running joke full of lairs, frauds, tax evaders, cheats, self centered egotistic maniacs, and hopelessly lost soles with no place to live but in a fantasy, just about everyone I have encountered that thinks this thing is real has some sort of a personal problem one way or another looking for a way out.
Sorry if you want more from me but it won't happen, BF is a mismanaged circus full of strange characters and I treat it that way.

Tim ~

 

[tsig]

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

So you wasted 4 - 6 hours finding out something that the rest of us already knew.

She's a fraud.

 

[StankApe]

I don't have $30 to blow on reading a lousy paper. I will wait for it to leak online or for an actual, you know, DNA scientist to review it .

ETA: I've also been trolling the Bigfoot Evidence comments section , that's gotta be worth something

 

[jerrywayne]

I have to admit, CWB is right about BFF and JREFF. Since the paper came out, generally speaking, the posting at BFF has been of a higher quality.

I attribute this to the the nature of the situation. Bigfooters are passionate about this (perceived) possible proof of Bigfoot, because they are passionate about Bigfoot. Forum members here don't have an equivalent counterbalance of passion for the non-existence, or existence, of Bigfoot.

 

[Resume]

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?
CWB

The hard part is the straight answer, then the follow-up to that answer. The question is why no monkey?

Almost every major player in this nonsense claims to know where Bigfoot lives and if that's the case there is no excuse for not producing a specimen. If these "groups" don't feel confident or competent enough in the task, hire someone. Only a drooling idiot wouldn't recognize the payoff here. Christ, the movie rights alone might yield generational wealth if the cards are played correctly. Then there's the science aspect, the historical aspect; ****, if I knew where I could find a footie I'd almost find it an obligation to obtain a specimen.

Melba Ketchum (DVM) claims to have observed a family of nine (9) Bigfoot, yet she's testing dna from submitted samples? Hey Melba, how about the ones in the backyard?

As long as claimants insist they've seen these things and know where they are, there is no reasonable excuse for not obtaining a specimen; all this dna paper/fake journal bs is just that, ********.

I appreciate your frustration cwb but for crissakes, I can't help it if these people won't address the most obvious question, then address the most obvious answer to that question.

 

[Castro]

Nutcase or not, if his science holds up, does it matter?

Science and Bigfootery, two different things. RRS said it very well: there's no science in BF. Many lies, a lot of imagination, but no science, because you know.... no monkey. ;-)

 

[RedRatSnake]

I appreciate your frustration cwb but for crissakes, I can't help it if these people won't address the most obvious question, then address the most obvious answer to that question.

And that's what it is all about, I have been doing this for a while now and most here longer than me, how long can we keep posting the same stuff to counter what the footers post, it's the same stuff over and over again, I have seen the quality of posts here drop off but it is not cause we don't have something to say, it's just after a while it gets redundant and tiring, there is no monkey, if there was it would have been on a slab long ago, what they have now is just book deals and tv shows in mind, the entire thing has changed cause the focus has has changed, they can't show something that don't exist so they have to fake it trying to use the name of science, and they got busted right off with that, all we can do is wait for the next train to pull into town and unload the new show, and even that won't be much of a surprise cause it still falls back onto ~ No Frigging Monkey.

Tim

 

[Jodie]

Science and Bigfootery, two different things. RRS said it very well: there's no science in BF.

If he looks at her mtDNA sequences and finds that , " Yes, they are definitely human" all he has done is validate that she sequenced it correctly.

If he looks at her nuclear DNA and says she made errors or there was indication for contamination, then I believe he would know what he is talking about.

Likewise if he says she and the referral labs did everyting correctly, I don't think that " Yes, this is bigoot" will be the opinion anyone will hear, though, until a consensus validates what was done or unless any kind of specimen is left so repeat testing can be done. You know, that thing called "peer review".

So what everyone is saying is regardless of the soundness of the peer review, if there is a suggestion that there is something new out there, you will reject it out of hand? Is that what I'm hearing?

 

[Resume]

So what everyone is saying is regardless of the soundness of the peer review, if there is a suggestion that there is something new out there, you will reject it out of hand? Is that what I'm hearing?

No, I don't think that's what everyone is saying. I think what some are saying that Sykes isn't above a little footery foolishness. I have no reason to think that might happen, but call me skeptical regarding his appearance at something called the Bigfoot Western Society.

As for rejecting evidence, I examine evidence first; in this instance I'd like a monkey please, especially since so many know where to find one. It is (and should be) unacceptable to claim unequivocal intimate knowledge of the whereabouts of this creature yet not produce a specimen. Period.

ETA: And upon viewing specimen I would say "How about that, a Bigfoot, I guess I was wrong."

I'm not wrong to be skeptical about such a creature however.

 

[tsig]

Science and Bigfootery, two different things. RRS said it very well: there's no science in BF. Many lies, a lot of imagination, but no science, because you know.... no monkey. ;-)

If he looks at her mtDNA sequences and finds that , " Yes, they are definitely human" all he has done is validate that she sequenced it correctly.

If he looks at her nuclear DNA and says she made errors or there was indication for contamination, then I believe he would know what he is talking about.

Likewise if he says she and the referral labs did everyting correctly, I don't think that " Yes, this is bigoot" will be the opinion anyone will hear, though, until a consensus validates what was done or unless any kind of specimen is left so repeat testing can be done. You know, that thing called "peer review".

So what everyone is saying is regardless of the soundness of the peer review, if there is a suggestion that there is something new out there, you will reject it out of hand? Is that what I'm hearing?

I guess that's what you're hearing but that's no what the post you're responding to is saying.

 

[Castro]

If he looks at her mtDNA sequences and finds that , " Yes, they are definitely human" all he has done is validate that she sequenced it correctly.

If he looks at her nuclear DNA and says she made errors or there was indication for contamination, then I believe he would know what he is talking about.

Likewise if he says she and the referral labs did everyting correctly. I don't think that " Yes, this is bigoot" will be the opinion anyone will hear, though, until a consensus validates what was done. You know, that thing called "peer review".

So what everyone is saying is regardless of the soundness of the peer review, if there is a suggestion that there is something new out there, you will reject it out of hand? Is that what I'm hearing?

Don't take it bad but all these "what if...and if...." don't make sense to me, because, actually, there's nothing new out there. Just another fraud.

 

[Jodie]

I guess that's what you're hearing but that's no what the post you're responding to is saying.

Reword it for me please so I can discontinue reading into it.

 

[LTC8K6]

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

The claims in the paper are silly. No scientist in their right mind would do much past trying to score in the garbage can after reading the paper, imo.

How anyone other than choir members gets past the first sentence of the abstract without snickering, is beyond me.

Sorry but I'm not willing to spend much time on yet another bigfootery joke fest masquerading as science. It is indeed way too much work for this garbage as far as I'm concerned.

Been there, done that, ad nauseam.

The BFF took it seriously? Really? How strange.... I recall lots of things taken seriously by the BFF. If that's the standard, then I give up.

Seriously examining it is already giving it a legitimacy it never deserved, imo.

It's way past time to stop taking this junk as anything but junk, imo.

 

[Jodie]

Don't take it bad but all these "what if...and if...." don't make sense to me, because, actually, there's nothing new out there. Just another fraud.

From the looks of the journals, lack of results given to the submitters, a paper throwed together at the last minute charging $30.00 to read, charging Wally half a million for something that should cost 1/5th of that, seems obvious to me.

I was responding to the statement that some would paint Sykes with a crazy brush if he validated anything she did.

 

[RedRatSnake]

So what everyone is saying is regardless of the soundness of the peer review, if there is a suggestion that there is something new out there, you will reject it out of hand? Is that what I'm hearing?

If real science says we got something then I am with it, I won't reject real honest proven science by reputable scientists and backed by a real paper, what I do reject is the entire notion that BF exists, that includes no room for it's possible, maybe, if, I'll wait, could be, ETC ~

Tim

 

[William Parcher]

So what everyone is saying is regardless of the soundness of the peer review, if there is a suggestion that there is something new out there, you will reject it out of hand? Is that what I'm hearing?

A new what? A new big ape in our forests? Or do you mean something like a new subspecies of chipmunk?

 

[William Parcher]

I was responding to the statement that some would paint Sykes with a crazy brush if he validated anything she did.

I absolutely will paint him with the crazy brush if he validates Ketchum's idea that Bigfoot exists.

 

[LTC8K6]

There isn't even a hint of a suggestion of anything "new" out there in Melba's work as far as I have read or heard.

 

[calwaterbear]

Look, you guys are apparently missing my point.
1. You can NEVER PROVE the NONEXISTANCE of Bigfoot.
2. what you can do is look at specific claims made by believers, particularly those intent on "proving" their existance
3. when you look at the many claims made by Melba, what you CAN PROVE, is a long series of lies. So If she is lying about all of this stuff - that makers it much more unlikely that her claims are legit.

Melba will never convince anyone over here, as will no one here ever convince a footer with their dogged recitation of their own personal belief.

for me demonstating that the highpriestess of BFery, has a long demonstrated history of serial lying, that may just put a bit of doubt in a believers mind - it might kick start a few of them tio critically evaluate their beliefs.

Thats where the "science" I am talking about lies in this issue, the examination of specific claims made by the individual. If I can demonstrate a whole long train of deliberate lies and deciet, the conclusion becomes a bit more obvious.

That has been the result of the examination of her paper, but what has not been pubically vetted is her repeated claims of scientific bias drove her to buy a journal to preserve the "peer review" and her claim of that bias again in GenBank not publishing her sequence!

Obviously many here would rather postulate and posture , not really interested in pursuing the truth. No problem , just does not measure up to my definition of a skeptic, but then again, obviously I am in the minority here!

And that's what it is all about, I have been doing this for a while now and most here longer than me, how long can we keep posting the same stuff to counter what the footers post, it's the same stuff over and over again, I have seen the quality of posts here drop off but it is not cause we don't have something to say, it's just after a while it gets redundant and tiring, there is no monkey, if there was it would have been on a slab long ago, what they have now is just book deals and tv shows in mind, the entire thing has changed cause the focus has has changed, they can't show something that don't exist so they have to fake it trying to use the name of science, and they got busted right off with that, all we can do is wait for the next train to pull into town and unload the new show, and even that won't be much of a surprise cause it still falls back onto ~ No Frigging Monkey.

Tim

 

[LTC8K6]

1. You can NEVER PROVE the NONEXISTANCE of Bigfoot.
2. what you can do is look at specific claims made by believers, particularly those intent on "proving" their existance
3. when you look at the many claims made by Melba, what you CAN PROVE, is a long series of lies.

1 - We know that. We actually don't have to prove anything.
2 - Specific verifiable claims seem to be rare these days.
3 - It doesn't seem to do much to show that a claim is not true. The claimant seems to retain credibility in Footerland. It seems to largely be a waste of resources to discredit Footers.