Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shrike said:
Indeed. I'm pretty sure that if a bigfoot was ever found and described Meldrum would have precedent with his ichnotaxon.
Click to expand...

Not meaning to impugn your knowledge and experience - but wouldn't Meldrum's paper have to be remarkably accurate in describing the new type specimen for his naming to be upheld?

After all, Meldrum's paper was mostly based on obviously false sets of prints - Blue Mountain and Patterson - and I would think the chances of those being matches for the "real thing" would be pretty low .

So I guess what I'm asking is: Can anybody throw a name in the appropriate ring without the slimmest scientific evidence to support their assertions and have it accepted when, by pure luck and coincidence, a creature somewhere in the ballpark of their fantastic claims is found?
 
Homo sapiens cognatus

http://zoobank.org/NomenclaturalActs/40E2FA1F-10A1-4D42-8B02-A007347F1B43

It has been given an LSID by ZooBank.
This is so anyone looking up future work for reference can locate the work already done. It has no bearing on the validity of the name, other than it says 'a published work has put forth this name, in this publication'.

If you named the Loch Ness Monster in a paper, Zoo Bank would classify it with an LSID
Four main types of data objects are stored in ZooBank. Nomenclatural acts are governed by the ICZN Code of Nomenclature, and are typically "original descriptions" of new scientific names, however other acts, such as emendations and lectotypifications, are also governed by the ICZN code and are accepted by ZooBank. Publications include journal articles and other publications containing Nomenclatural Acts. Authors records the academic authorship of Nomenclatural Acts. Type Specimens record the biological type specimens of animals which are provisionally registered, until the bodies responsible for such types implement their own registries.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZooBank
 
rockinkt said:
. . . wouldn't Meldrum's paper have to be remarkably accurate in describing the new type specimen for his naming to be upheld?
Click to expand...

Good point. The onus would be on Meldrum to make the link that he had named the right thing, and that's impossible given that he proposed a name for prints that were clearly hoaxed.

I'll stand corrected on that one and concede that this stunt by TheMelba likely would give her the naming precedent.
 
Maybe Dyer was right. A retractable tool with pouch is the ultimate underwear. If you have a tiny...

It had really big feet, but a tiny.....
Click to expand...

small_penis_judges.jpg


It would seem that Melba Ketchum (bread catcher, errr toast, err i woke up outside and my privates were sore.) is still going around trying to pedal her "paper". Could she be arrested for fraud over all of this? I would hope so.
 
Sykes finds no evidence for Sasquatch

Sykes confirms that the DNA from the USA's "best samples" were black bear, wolves (or dogs), raccoons, a cow, a horse etc. Nothing mysterious from any sample. They couldn't find any blood on Smeja's boots. Derek Randle's sample was canine, despite it "being in line with a trackway of sasquatch footprints". No "unknowns".

They tested 12 samples selected from a much wider group of samples, and chosen either because the hairs looked superficially unusual, or because the provenance was good. Smeja's sample was stated to be from the young one, not the adult, and it was a bear. In other words, Smeja either didn't get the sample from the animal he killed, or he doesn't recognise a young bear from 2 feet away. Four of the named samples were from Smeja, Randles, Dan Shirley & Garland Fields, and Marcel Cagey. There was no mention of Ketchum, nor of the sources of the other 8 samples tested.

There was a clue to the type of testing undertaken, too. "Each test cost £200,000, and delivers results in days that used to take years". I might be jumping the gun, but that doesn't sound like your basic mtDNA test to me.

You need this quote form Sykes: "Genetics is merciless".

So, all you guys climbing into Sykes for getting involved in this, how about a bit of credit for him now? He went and looked the sample providers in the eye and told them they were wrong.

Mike
 
Last edited:
Right, well it's probably time for the BFF to shut down then, I guess. There is no BF. Take away the BF and all you have left is F. All any of us have left to discuss is the human interest side of sasquatchery.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Sykes confirms that the DNA from the USA's "best samples" were black bear, wolves (or dogs), raccoons, a cow, a horse etc. Nothing mysterious from any sample. They couldn't find any blood on Smeja's boots. Derek Randle's sample was canine, despite it "being in line with a trackway of sasquatch footprints". No "unknowns".

They tested 12 samples selected from a much wider group of samples, and chosen either because the hairs looked superficially unusual, or because the provenance was good. Smeja's sample was stated to be from the young one, not the adult, and it was a bear. In other words, Smeja either didn't get the sample from the animal he killed, or he doesn't recognise a young bear from 2 feet away. Four of the named samples were from Smeja, Randles, Dan Shirley & Garland Fields, and Marcel Cagey. There was no mention of Ketchum, nor of the sources of the other 8 samples tested.

There was a clue to the type of testing undertaken, too. "Each test cost £200,000, and delivers results in days that used to take years". I might be jumping the gun, but that doesn't sound like your basic mtDNA test to me.

You need this quote form Sykes: "Genetics is merciless".

So, all you guys climbing into Sykes for getting involved in this, how about a bit of credit for him now? He went and looked the sample providers in the eye and told them they were wrong.

Mike
Click to expand...


The one thing you must give credit for is, him remaining open minded to the project despite how the phenomenon is completely bogus. The thing that should really be studied is the human side of it, and the psychological side of it. As well, we should be looking closely at the money, where it goes and what the claims were. There is a lot of possible fraud involved when you start talking about folks like Ketchum and others.
 
MikeG said:
..."Each test cost £200,000, and delivers results in days that used to take years". I might be jumping the gun, but that doesn't sound like your basic mtDNA test to me.

You need this quote form Sykes: "Genetics is merciless".

So, all you guys climbing into Sykes for getting involved in this, how about a bit of credit for him now? He went and looked the sample providers in the eye and told them they were wrong.

Mike
Click to expand...
Cite? And while I'm highly skeptical "Each test cost £200,000", I'm accordingly appreciative he's confirmed scientifically what was already painfully obvious to most normal thinking people (if not already proven). Ultimately though, he didn't really prove anything of serious importance to skeptics/non-Bigfooters.
 
It was just a distraction for the Bigfooters anyway. False alarm. They can get back to believing and knowing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom