Merged Bigfoot follies

[Resume]

Concerning Paulides.



The interesting thing to me is that he claimed the issue closed: Bigfoot exist! Ketchum's paper proved it.

I predict this will be the new trend in Bigfooting. We now know BIgfoot exists, no body necessary. We just want to study its life from afar.

I think I read a Derek Randles comment to the effect that he does not feel he needs to prove Bigfoot existence anymore. All that is needed is to study how the creature lives and survives, etc. Roger Knight, creator of "scoftic," once argued that Bigfoot advocates no longer need to prove the existence of Bigfoot, the real issue is the collection of more evidence in a scientific, organized fashion, so as to better understand the creature.

So, despite the never ending askance of science to involve itself in the quest for a large land mammal know as Bigfoot, Bigfooters themselves are seeming to appear more and more like run of the mill paranormals: Believing in existance prior to confirmation.

I've always associated bigfoot enthusiasts with paranormalists as their M.O. is nearly the same except footers claim to know exactly where their pet cryptid lives; with the ubiquity of modern photo and video there is zero excuse for no compelling video or photos. And certainly there have to be footers with the mercenary impulse to produce a type specimen either dead or alive.

The problem here is the reality of no bigfoot.

 

[Resume]

Yeah, there's going to be a lot more follies as the Ketchum people are now claiming there are mtDNA mutations, allegedly bigfoot, found in five different states. Don't know how they'll back up these claims given their dubious history.

Think she's all jealous over the footer attention drawn from her to Sykes?

I guess this is the groundbreaking discussion: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2013-02/1361701351

No laughing dogs were injured in researching this post.

 

[jerrywayne]

I guess this is the groundbreaking discussion: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2013-02/1361701351

No laughing dogs were injured in researching this post.

Are these the folks Ketchum is touting as important supporters?

Here is a comment by Alister John Marsh, a geneticist to warm the heart of Melba:

"I think Matilda might be sample 31, from Alabama, historically a slave
state, she is haplogroup LO. The haplotype is similar to modern African
haplotypes, and at first sight seems unlikely to have gotten to America as
long ago as 15,000 years, or even earlier. Perhaps this mtDNA got to
America with the slave trade in the past 500 years, and perhaps Matilda's
maternal ancestor was an escaped African slave girl captured or adopted by
Bigfoots??? Perhaps the admixture was 10 generations ago?"

He is wondering how a least one Bigfoot in Ketchum's study is African American. He assumes it is Matilda because she is "from Alabama." Matilda is a proud Kentuckian, to the contrary. And Matilda is known to wear a Wookiee mask on occasion, perhaps a tribal, ritualistic holdover from Africa by way of Hollywood.

 

[Resume]

Are these the folks Ketchum is touting as important supporters?

Here is a comment by Alister John Marsh, a geneticist to warm the heart of Melba:

"I think Matilda might be sample 31, from Alabama, historically a slave
state, she is haplogroup LO. The haplotype is similar to modern African
haplotypes, and at first sight seems unlikely to have gotten to America as
long ago as 15,000 years, or even earlier. Perhaps this mtDNA got to
America with the slave trade in the past 500 years, and perhaps Matilda's
maternal ancestor was an escaped African slave girl captured or adopted by
Bigfoots??? Perhaps the admixture was 10 generations ago?"

He is wondering how a least one Bigfoot in Ketchum's study is African American. He assumes it is Matilda because she is "from Alabama." Matilda is a proud Kentuckian, to the contrary. And Matilda is known to wear a Wookiee mask on occasion, perhaps a tribal, ritualistic holdover from Africa by way of Hollywood.

If it's this AJ Marsh, http://www.hera.co.nz/Company?Action=View&Company_id=6724, he's an architect, not a geneticist.

 

[jerrywayne]

If it's this AJ Marsh, http://www.hera.co.nz/Company?Action=View&Company_id=6724, he's an architect, not a geneticist.

Doesn't sound like an architect here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/1265755011

Or here: http://www.kin.marshdna.com/index.htm

Of course, he could be just a dabbler.

 

[Resume]

Doesn't sound like an architect here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/1265755011

Or here: http://www.kin.marshdna.com/index.htm

Of course, he could be just a dabbler.

I was thinking it was this guy:http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/MARSH/2011-12/1325373219

Who might have published this:http://books.google.com/books/about/Marsh_Families_in_New_Zealand.html?id=pAxiHAAACAAJ

But it's a bit confusing.

But to your point, if he's at all convinced that Matilda is legit, he's a credule for certain.

 

[elkabong51]

Hey, all--my first post here. I'm just curious--has anyone checked into Melba Ketchum's back story/CV? Is her veterinary education (Texas A&M) legit? Did she really assist in the DNA identification of 9/11 victims? I really question how someone with such a poor grasp of the scientific process could manage to obtain a DVM degree, or be an "expert" on anything to do with DNA.

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered.

 

[Resume]

Hey, all--my first post here. I'm just curious--has anyone checked into Melba Ketchum's back story/CV? Is her veterinary education (Texas A&M) legit? Did she really assist in the DNA identification of 9/11 victims? I really question how someone with such a poor grasp of the scientific process could manage to obtain a DVM degree, or be an "expert" on anything to do with DNA.

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered.

Certainly her DNA enterprise had problems:http://www.bbb.org/east-texas/busin...diagnostics-in-timpson-tx-24003140/complaints

As far as I know, her involvement in 9/11 DNA indentifications has never been confirmed.

 

[aboman]

A list of organizations involved in the 9/11 DNA id process surfaced a while back, DNA Diagnostics or Shelterwood Laboratories were not listed. The only "proof" offered was a snippet on some forum from a listing of papers that seemed to include Ketchum as one of the authors to a paper discussing 9/11 testing. Upon closer investigation it turned out Ketchum was not an author of that paper, but of an other paper listed on the same site.

I think someone here said that back when Ketchum got her DVM that was a 3 year program in Texas?

 

[Castro]

I was thinking it was this guy:http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/MARSH/2011-12/1325373219

Who might have published this:http://books.google.com/books/about/Marsh_Families_in_New_Zealand.html?id=pAxiHAAACAAJ

But it's a bit confusing.

But to your point, if he's at all convinced that Matilda is legit, he's a credule for certain.

I think it could be the same guy:

Alister John Marsh (genealogist?) published "Marsh families in New Zealand" in Christchurch N.Z. (1st edition 1989):
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL4344475W/Marsh_families_in_New_Zealand

A. J. Marsh (architect) address is in Christchurch N.Z. :
http://www.hera.co.nz/Company?Action=View&Company_id=6724

and the Alister John Marsh posting on ancestry.com is from Christchuch N.Z. too. See the signature of this post:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/MARSH/2011-12/1325373219

 

[Resume]

I think it could be the same guy:

Alister John Marsh (genealogist?) published "Marsh families in New Zealand" in Christchurch N.Z. (1st edition 1989):
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL4344475W/Marsh_families_in_New_Zealand

A. J. Marsh (architect) address is in Christchurch N.Z. :
http://www.hera.co.nz/Company?Action=View&Company_id=6724

and the Alister John Marsh posting on ancestry.com is from Christchuch N.Z. too. See the signature of this post:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/MARSH/2011-12/1325373219

Whichever March he is, his analysis of the African American (LO) haplotype in sample 31 is a hoot.

 

[Castro]

^^^Yep, the show goes on!

 

[jerrywayne]

I think it could be the same guy:

Alister John Marsh (genealogist?) published "Marsh families in New Zealand" in Christchurch N.Z. (1st edition 1989):
http://openlibrary.org/works/OL4344475W/Marsh_families_in_New_Zealand

A. J. Marsh (architect) address is in Christchurch N.Z. :
http://www.hera.co.nz/Company?Action=View&Company_id=6724

and the Alister John Marsh posting on ancestry.com is from Christchuch N.Z. too. See the signature of this post:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/MARSH/2011-12/1325373219

So he is a dabbler in genetics? This is Ketchum's support group?

 

[tsig]

So he is a dabbler in genetics? This is Ketchum's support group?

Looks like what we have here is a more sciency version of Bigfoot in a freezer.

 

[Resume]

So he is a dabbler in genetics? This is Ketchum's support group?

She posted his "unsolicitated commentary" on her Facebook page, but I think it's removed now.

 

[Castro]

So he is a dabbler in genetics? This is Ketchum's support group?

He presents himself as an "amateur genealogist" and his address corresponds to the "architect's" address in Christchurch N. Z. here (see the "project group administrator" paragraph at the begining of the page):
http://www.kin.marshdna.com/DNAinfo.htm

 

[RayG]

Funny thing: Sykes is the one who claimed a "Yeti" sample was from an unknown primate.

Certain footers made that leap, but I don't recall Sykes ever actually using the phrase "unknown primate" when describing the hairs.

Later, one of his grad students did further testing and found that it was a contaminated bear sample.

Even then some footers stuck with the unspoken 'unknown primate' claim.

Did Sykes give up on the sample too soon? Or is something else involved here?

He likely had more important/interesting things to do.

RayG

 

[jerrywayne]

You're correct, Ray.

I misremembered. Sykes said it was "unknown," not "unknown primate."

However, he did present it in a slightly more dramatic fashion than it should have been.

http://rense.com/general11/yhet.htm

 

[Resume]

You're correct, Ray.

I misremembered. Sykes said it was "unknown," not "unknown primate."

However, he did present it in a slightly more dramatic fashion than it should have been.

http://rense.com/general11/yhet.htm

"We found some DNA in it, but we don't know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear nor anything else we have so far been able to identify. It's a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn't recognise before."

It's not just dramatic, it seems definitive, yet later it's bear. It seems a bit careless to me. Maybe he did have something more important to do.

 

[LTC8K6]

We have never encountered DNA that we couldn't recognise before.

Is it just me, or does that seem unlikely?