Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
clayflingythingy said:
Reports that the gullible fool had paid TheMelba well into six figures is old news OS.
Click to expand...

What shocks me is the amount he ended up paying her. The cost of sequencing a complete human genome is now somewhere around $5000. It seems Melba had some hidden fees here and there :D
 
I remembered just now that Wally payed for other people's samples as well, not just the Olympic Project's. I believe this was how Dr. Ketchum made the majority of her money off of Wally. She passed well over 100 samples as real Bigfoot samples, with at least 20 of them coming from well known hoaxers and habituators. I suspect that only a few of the samples, if any, were truly DNA analysis worthy. Then there's the issue of how she probably didn't do any actual DNA analysis :jaw-dropp

Bigfootery got fooled again, big time.
 
Last edited:
Hey, who was it on here a while back that suggested Hersom was the logical agent funding TheMelba?

So back then this person suggested that the only way TheMelba would be held accountable was by whomever had contracted with her. Maybe Hersom, when he gets what he has demanded, can logically receive nothing but fabricated "evidence". This is where TheMelba has to commit a criminal act to fulfill her contract, this alleged Bigfoot sequencing. It's breach of contract if she turns nothing over, and she is already late apparently.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out - whether Hirsom gets angry about the principle of the thing. Not the money so much, but that he was hornswaggled by a hoaxer.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Hey, who was it on here a while back that suggested Hersom was the logical agent funding TheMelba?

So back then this person suggested that the only way TheMelba would be held accountable was by whomever had contracted with her. Maybe Hersom, when he gets what he has demanded, can logically receive nothing but fabricated "evidence". This is where TheMelba has to commit a criminal act to fulfill her contract, this alleged Bigfoot sequencing. It's breach of contract if she turns nothing over, and she is already late apparently.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out - whether Hirsom gets angry about the principle of the thing. Not the money so much, but that he was hornswaggled by a hoaxer.
Click to expand...
It might be very interesting. You've allowed me to re-state in different terms what I had also 'clumsily' forgot is a really difficult to deal with subject for many folks. That is, I'll consider it at least partial 'vindication by proxy' when Wally Hersom doesn't go after her in any civil or criminal action despite the $450,000 or the principle of it. I'd respond also to several other posts in the now trashed post string, but that's probably over the line rule-wise and it would needlessly if not comically re-raise the ire of the forum's wholesomely righteous. :cool:
 
GT/CS said:
Another piece????
What else have they got?
Click to expand...

The footers? What do they have?

Well they cite the Fahrenbach hair samples, all the sightings that pass their loose standards, The DNA from the cabin, Meldrum's ichnotaxon paper, and on and on.

The key word is 'Footer lore', they've got tons of it.
 
GT/CS said:
Another piece????
What else have they got?
Click to expand...

They have loads of lore they consider evidence: nearly every anecdotal campfire story, PGF, funny looking feetprints, Ape Canyon, Dr. John, Dr. Jeff . . . I'm certain that when the NAWAC strikes out, they story line will be that try as they might, footie just proved to be too elusive (illusive) and see, more evidence.
 
But what do they have that has been reveiwed and rejected by mainstream science? Or are you stating that mainstream science won't even look at the evidence?
 
GT/CS said:
But what do they have that has been reveiwed and rejected by mainstream science? Or are you stating that mainstream science won't even look at the evidence?
Click to expand...

If mainstream science looks at Bigfoot evidence, and says it is not bigfoot, they say they are part of a conspiracy. If mainstream science doesn't look at Bigfoot evidence they say they are not doing science.
 
GT/CS said:
But what do they have that has been reveiwed and rejected by mainstream science? Or are you stating that mainstream science won't even look at the evidence?
Click to expand...

I think you know what many bigfoot enthusiasts think of mainstream science: not doing enough, dismissing out of hand, not giving folks like Ketchum (DVM) a fair shake. I mean c'mon, these guys want unsubstantiated anecdotes considered objective evidence for their pet cryptid. Yet, one guy mutters Meldrum and Einstein in the same mouthful; they don't appreciate science on the one hand, then attempt to link their enthusiasm with scientific innovation on the other.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
If mainstream science looks at Bigfoot evidence, and says it is not bigfoot, they say they are part of a conspiracy. If mainstream science doesn't look at Bigfoot evidence they say they are not doing science.
Click to expand...

This observation is bigfootery, in a nutshell.
 
Drewbot said:
If mainstream science looks at Bigfoot evidence, and says it is not bigfoot, they say they are part of a conspiracy.
If mainstream science doesn't look at Bigfoot evidence they say they are not doing science and are part of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
... for completeness
 
In the last decade or so there have been two developments that have made studying wildlife much, much easier. One is trail cameras which some of the “bigfoot researchers” have been using and interestingly have not documented any large bipedal apes but they have gotten photos of just about every other mammal. The other development has been obtaining DNA from hair samples. I don’t have enough posts (this is my third) to include a link but do a google search on “Estimating abundance of mountain lions from unstructured spatial sampling”. This is a great study that was done in Montana. Researchers and volunteers systematically monitored Forest Service roads in winter (November to January) using snow mobiles. Tracks were located, backtracked and hair samples were collected on brush or logs along the track way. Trained dogs were also used to tree mountain lions which were then shot with a tranquilizer dart for capture or a muscle biopsy dart. A total of 52 tissues samples were collected and 204 hair samples. They were able to get enough DNA to ID and sex individuals from 23% of the backtrack samples in addition to the others. With this data they were able to estimate mountain lion population density in the area. “Hair traps” are also used to collect samples and have made it much easier to obtain density estimates for bears. Hair samples from a long haired animal like bigfoot should not be that difficult to obtain. Do any of the bigfoot researchers track (forward or backwards), hire professional trackers, use trained dogs (ok, this one is more difficult as what scent do you use to train them?) or use hair traps? I’m guessing no. If this is a real animal then there should be lots of these things running around and hair samples or tracks should not be that hard to find. If we use grizzly bears as a model (similar size and presumably diet), grizzlies have a density of 1-3 bears per 100 km² in good habitat (sorry can't post a link). This is a large area but it’s not that large, 10km by 10km or ~6 miles by ~6 miles. And because grizzlies are now absent from most of the lower 48 states, bigfoot should have expanded its numbers to fill in the vacant niche, making them easier to find. Mountain lions are notoriously secretive but researchers were able to obtain literally, several hundred hair and tissue samples in 2-3 months. I’d like to see a breakdown of that 450k budget :)

Apologies for the length of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom