1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DNA confirms the existence of Bigfoot

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Ronnie Bass, Nov 24, 2012.

  1. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    http://networkedblogs.com/F8tW1

    I have been following this story for a couple years now, this is a game changer if her work is published in a scientific journal as it has been rumored.
     
  2. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    Not sure if serious
     
    SICK likes this.
  3. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    Dead serious.
     
  4. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    "...and was immeadiately approached to register as a Democrat.."
     
    CashInFist likes this.
  5. MikeHoncho

    MikeHoncho -=| Censored |=-

    52,652
    25,565
    113
    Nov 13, 2009
    I guess this makes Lucky a daddy?
     
    CashInFist, SICK, Boik14 and 2 others like this.
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    If Lucky's the dad, this will be a pygmy bigfoot.
     
    unluckyluciano likes this.
  7. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    While as they are a hybrid and half us they might have voting rights, but how would you know if they weren't born in Canada?

    All jokes aside this is not meant to be funny, I know we are all inclined to make silly comments with the subject Bigfoot comes up, but in the first sentence of the release it says her study is under review from her peers, well "peers" is fellow scientists. This is not amateur hours guys.
     
  8. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    Here is the jist of what I understand so far:

    Three different sources of DNA was tested on, meaning they were able to get DNA from three different subjects. 109 samples were tested in all.

    Four independent laboratories took part in the study, one government, one university and the other two were private firms. They all came to the same conclusions - a unknown male species 15,000 years ago mated with a modern Homo sapien resulting in a hybrid of what we call Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Almost like a feral human.

    Her work is under peer review, thing being that when ones work is under peer review the golden rule is you don't discuss your work in the public eye, something she did yesterday with her press release. She did have her hands forced when another scientist from Russia decided to leak out her results, so she must have felt compelled to give some info on what they have discovered. She also might feel so confident in her work it don't need publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal. We rather that not be the case though, be much easier to sell her work if it was published in a respected journal.

    Dr Melba Ketchum, while a competent DNA researcher has attracted some deserved criticism along the way. A lot of it had to do with the field itself, because most of science has chosen to ignore the possibility of the existence of Bigfoot, it has open the doors for some VERY shady characters, such as Matt Moneymaker (Finding Bigfoot show on Animal Planet), Tom Biscardi (you should remember him from the Georgia Bigfoot hoax) and many others such as Todd Standing. They do poison the process, sometimes with just their names alone. For example the Russian scientist who divulged some of Ketchum's work is a prime example of what I am talking about, he's a person that is some reason is connected to her and something most of us frown upon. Even respected Bigfoot researchers such as Dr Jeff Meldrum have grown wary of him.

    The other problem and the elephant in the room is she has yet to release any data, until then we must be more patient, the term a lot of us are using is "cautiously optimistic".
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Link
    I believe she's withholding the evidence because she knows it is bunk but wants research money from someone who is convinced by the DNA story alone.
     
  10. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    I'm not 100% in her camp because some of the things she has done so far and the people she is associating with are shady, but I don't think the DNA evidence bunk, and if it is it will bury her completely, no one will forward a dime to her.

    One problem she does face is the scientific community as a whole might not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, even if her data is solid. It's going have to take a brave soul to come out and say they stand by her work, especially when you see venom and hate being thrown at Dr Ketchum. Many "skeptics" or not really act like skeptics but more like cynics. You could have a Bigfoot ***** slap one of them in the face and they will still be in denial of its existence. More people in science need to think outside the box and not have the earth is flat attitude many display.

    But I do think there is something there, what I have heard is one possibility is the way she is trying to portray the evidence to what she thinks it represents instead of letting the evidence represent itself, giving pause to those reviewing her work.
     
  11. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You misunderstand. I'm saying she won't release the evidence she has (knowing its just contaminated dna) because based on what's already been said she may get funding. Scientists don't purposely withhold research and data if they don't have anything to hide. That behavior is counter to the fundamental concepts of science.
     
  12. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    Just to let you know I have been following and debating this topic for over a year, so I'm pretty up to date on everything on it, so I can tell you money is not an issue for her, she is quite comfortable plus she already has backers. More funding is something she is worried about. The second thing is I don't contamination is an issue when you consider the scope of the DNA evidence she has accumulated, its hard to believe that not only did it all get contaminated but for to get the same lab results from multiple laboratories. Remember they the evidence is from at least THREE sources collected at different times and locations.
     
  13. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    And I'm not saying your wrong on her playing games or she has motives, I'm just pretty sure you're on the wrong track.
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Evidence she won't release though. You were correct to call that the elephant in the room, but you're not going far enough in seeing that as an indictment of her evidence. There is no reason to not release it. Like I said before it absolutely counter to scientific principles....so much so, what she is doing can longer be considered actual science. For any process to be considered science there must be peer review.

    BTW, I'd LOVE IT, if they proved bigfoot. I just haven't seen compelling evidence yet.
     
  15. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    She already made an error in judgement in making claims while her work is under peer review, but that is because a college, shady as he is, jumped the gun and she felt compelled to make a statement, can you imagine what would happen if she released her data while the peer review is ongoing? Plus I believe her data is under embargo. Believe me if she is playing games with bad data I will be the first to hang her for it, until then I will try to give her the benefit of the doubt. People need to be patient with her and let the process play out.
     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Like I said, it would be fricking awesome if there was a bigfoot, I hope I'm wrong...but I just haven't seen compelling evidence yet.
     
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I've always felt that it was more likely than not that we would eventually find evidence of a Bigfoot like creature. We know that there once existed a bigfoot-like creature from the fossil record (Gigantopithecus). These fossils were found in China and I believe have been dated to as recently as 30,000 years ago. So the question is not whether it existed, but whether it still exists and where does(did) it live. There are stories about Bigfoot-like creatures all over the world. I always found it interesting that among American Indians, Sasquatch was not talked about as a fictional creature, but rather as a real animal like the bear or the horse.
     
  18. Fishweiser

    Fishweiser New Member

    864
    347
    0
    Apr 24, 2009
    This thread cracks me up...not whats discussed in it, but how it reads on the main forum home page. It reads..."DNA confirms the existence of...." then it will have who ever last posted. The last I saw read "DNA confirms the existence of....rafael"....Now, at least for the moment, it will read "DNA confirms the existence of....Fishweiser".....

    Ha,Ha!! LOL!!....ahem.....yea.......ok, seriously though, carry on.......
     
    Fin D likes this.
  19. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    I don't believe you exist. Prove it.
     
  20. Fishweiser

    Fishweiser New Member

    864
    347
    0
    Apr 24, 2009
    What this forum says is always right. Prooving it........NOW (CLICK!!)
     
  21. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,006
    6,368
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    This site just got Squatchy.
     
  22. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    I love that word. Especially when used in Finding Bigfoot reference.

    God that show is bad....dude laid out doughnuts as bait because "Squatches eat like I do".
     
    Sethdaddy8 likes this.
  23. 2socks

    2socks Rebuilding Since 1973

    8,141
    2,103
    113
    Nov 27, 2008
    Atlanta
    I've known for yrs they exist. Been knocking over my christmas lights in the yard. Damn things.......next time just wait----
     
  24. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
  25. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    This is intriguing and as the "staff" molecular biologist, I will do more research tomorrow and report back :) That said, typically, we see these sort of discoveries well in advance of submission to a major journal and not learn about these things in the fringe press, but I have heard nothing until now.

    What is most striking is that the good Doctor's website is offline... http://dnadiagnostics.com
     
  26. Ronnie Bass

    Ronnie Bass Luxury Box Luxury Box

    16,376
    10,864
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    Her website and email got hacked Xmas Eve.
     
  27. cdz12250

    cdz12250 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    10,265
    7,907
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Coconut Grove
    We are not "fringe press." We are a forum of serious intellectual import. Don't you know?
     
  28. Celtkin

    Celtkin <B>Webmaster</b> Luxury Box

    20,213
    11,565
    113
    Nov 22, 2007
    46.73° N, 117.00° W
    Hey Bro! Good to see you again!

    As for her site being hacked, I am not buying it. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/hacker-alert-dr-melba-ketchums-website.html

    This seems like a publicity act to me. From the article "Does our government have anything to do with this? It's a possibility"...Yeah, I am sure that the government has a vested interest in discrediting her..


    This is a worthy read from a notable Bigfoot scientist: http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/11/dr-jeff-meldrum-responds-to-melba.html

    To quote; Dr. Ketchum provides a much more reasonable interview for a Houston news program. She acknowledges the prematurity of the announcement (I believe she could have stopped short of discussing her unpublished results, however). She does conclude by saying the publication is anticipated in a matter of weeks not months (we've heard that before, but I hope this time it is indeed accurate).
    Please don't get me wrong. I truly hope she has the brass ring. I want very much for her study to be legitimate and significant. To that end I want to see her navigate the publication process properly and successfully!

    My criticisms stem from the lack of available substantiation of her interpretation of the mtDNA results and the difficulty I have envisioning a scenario that accounts from what is proposed -- a hybridization event 15000 years ago in Eastern Europe that resulted in a population dispersed across North America.

    Many people don't seem to understand the role of a null hypothesis (a working hypothesis). The aim is to attempt to falsify or refute it. The hypothesis that whatever is out there is likely a relict ape, or a relict early hominin (e.g. Paranthropus) appears the most reasonable in light of the substantive objective data (personal subjective experiences by some, notwithstanding). Melba even acknowledges this fact in her interview. If evidence, properly interpreted, overwhelmingly negates the null hypothesis, then we set it aside -- simple as that. The notion of "camps" as if they were political parties, has no legitimate place in a scientific endeavor.

    I am anxious to see the results -- whatever they are!
     

Share This Page