Bigfoot Dna

[kitakaze]

Kitekaze has made a very strong allegation of criminal wrongdoing against Dr. Ketchum and to my knowledge has shown no evidence to support his charge. One of the few scientist who have agreed to help Bigfoot researchers, which is what all have been asking for, comes forward and gets greeted with this sort of thing.

1) Kitakaze.

2) I think Paulides is running a scam. He said the Bigfoot that the first important hair sample was from rummaging through a woman's garbage and one of the attending police officers felt the earth shaking from the Bigfoot waalking at 100 yards distant. Ludicrous. Think I am guilty of libel? Do your best. Of all the people that have tried to intimidate me, a couple of rectangles on a computer screen named "driftinmark" and "indiefoot" are not going to succeed where Matt Moneymaker failed. Do you realize I am associated with a huge organization that defends people who investigate scammers and hoaxers? I know my rights regarding my opinions.

Check this out...

I think Sylvia Browne is a vile and wretched toad of a woman that claims to be a psychic and in touch with the dead. She is a vampiric leech thing that feeds off the desperation and grief of distraught families and friends for profit and prestige. I think she is a prestige addict. I think many common thieves would be morally superior to her.

Did I just commit libel? No, I did not. I am in Canada and she is in America. We both live in countries where you can't prosecute people for voicing opinions, unless they are hate crimes. I think Sylvia Browne is loathsome. I never said people should harass her or the she has some infectious disease.

See how that works?

I think there are shennanigans going on with Paulides, Ketchum, and Biscardi. I am allowed to think that. Please try not to have a heart attack about it. I welcome the people I am suspicious of to prove me wrong.

[Guest Spazmo]

a couple of rectangles on a computer screen ... are not going to succeed where Matt Moneymaker failed.

Can you elaborate?

[Guest]

Well, Jodie, you are completely wrong on the scale of DNA variations. I tried to direct you; the 11 or 13 or 6 markers (various states, etc) used in forensic testing are only a tiny fraction of the variations in DNA. You should find a good book on the subject.

As far as kitakaze:

is this it? He is absolutely correct. For a non-scientist, I think he manifests a good grasp of what this is about. What "basics" do you think he doesn't understand? sincerely, I don't think you are in a position to judge kitakaze; your knowledge base is not adequate, imho. But of course you can do whatever you wish.

As far as sequencing is concerned, here is the deal: if she sent this to Todd Disotell or John Hawks, and asked him whether or not this is human, he could tell in 72 hours or so whether this was human or not. I think it is. In which case, sequencing the entire genome would be unnecessary.

Ok, I was completely lost there for a moment. If you think someone truly doesn't understand something you try to put it in the simplest terms you can, Parnassus. For the sake of the conversation I thought I was having with Kitakaze, I did just that. As for what I don't think he understands, that is based on his comments in conjunction with the articles and videos posted. All I have ever seen the boy do is make a few statements and post a video or link to an article on this thread. If you take the time to actually read the articles it doesn't back up what he is posting. There are many types of genetic variation, you don't leap to epigenetics if you don't understand DNA sequencing. What I am criticizing Kitakaze for is continuing to use his misconceptions about genetic research in general as a sign of fraud. He assumes it can be nothing but human, I don't. I don't think that not hearing from Dr. Ketchum in the time frame he gave indicates anything one way or the other. If it is something new, you probably won't hear about it, if it is human you probably won't hear about it either.

Edit- At least not until it is completely finished and up for review.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Jodie

[Guest Spazmo]

I think Sylvia Browne is a vile and wretched toad of a woman that claims to be a psychic and in touch with the dead. She is a vampiric leech thing that feeds off the desperation and grief of distraught families and friends for profit and prestige. I think she is a prestige addict. I think many common thieves would be morally superior to her.

Understood.

But keep in mind, if Sylvia Browne was a member of this forum, you'd be in hot water here for that post.

In the spirit of making the new BFF a nicer place to be, could you try to tone down this kind of rhetoric? It's your call Kit, I'm asking nicely.

[indiefoot]

Under US law there are four thing you cannot say. They are considered Defamation Per Se

Defamation per se

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. "Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things":[5]

Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"

Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)

Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)

Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude) [6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_per_se

[kitakaze]

Ok, I was completely lost there for a moment. If you think someone truly doesn't understand something you try to put it in the simplest terms you can, Parnassus. For the sake of the conversation I thought I was having with Kitakaze, I did just that. As for what I don't think he understands, that is based on his comments in conjunction with the articles and videos posted. All I have ever seen the boy do is make a few statements and post a video or link to an article on this thread. If you take the time to actually read the articles it doesn't back up what he is posting. There are many types of genetic variation, you don't leap to epigenetics if you don't understand DNA sequencing. What I am criticizing Kitakaze for is continuing to use his misconceptions about genetic research in general as a sign of fraud. He assumes it can be nothing but human, I don't. I don't think that not hearing from Dr. Ketchum in the time frame he gave indicates anything one way or the other. If it is something new, you probably won't hear about it, if it is human you probably won't hear about it either.

Edit- At least not until it is completely finished and up for review.

I have an idea. I think I have an adequate understanding of the basics of genetics. I am not a doctor like parnassus is, but I am a human evolution nerd, and thus I have to be up on my genetics. That was why I ate up Todd Disotell's presentations and his interview with Ben Radford, Blake Smith, and Karen Stollznow. Those people had great questions for Prof. Disotell, and I learned a lot of things I didn't know about DNA testing and particularly how it relates to Bigfoot.

Jodie, please feel free to point out what you thinks is my biggest misconception of genetics, and either parnassus or I will tell you if we think that is correct. I am no expert, so I would take parnassus' knowledge at higher value than mine. Ketchum said they had a bone and that it was huge. She also said they had a few hairs with follicles to test. She said they need the follicles, and particularly the skin tags. As I understand it from the New York University Professor of Anthropology, mtDNA typing analyses are to the advancement of being able to use just the shaft. Ketchum blundered with Josh Gates and insisted the human hair they found must not be human because it was coarser looking than horse hair. Check the picture I posted. It was fine and wispy. I call that a fail. I think it's weird, yet funny that a vet could fail so badly with human hair. See how that works with the strong claims meeting strong scrutiny? That is the inevitable nature of informed skepticism.

She says they have a huge bone and some hair follicles to test. Lickety-split and Bob's your uncle, her lab, and an outside independent lab should be able to confirm the samples as being species specific and matching each other in unknown species. This is one of the forms of reliable evidence I am waiting for. I am not seeing promise in the promises made here. I think if this veterinarian had any sense, maybe she shouldn't have business associations with notorious hoaxers. That isn't unreasonable for me to think, is it?

Paulides has already been connected to one scam involving using his position as a police officer to hoard celebrity autographs. He was formally charged with it. He said it was all a misunderstanding. I think it was pretty clear cut. I am allowed to think so. I think Paulides is plowing through Bigfootery and making a mess wherever he goes. I think he developed a new scam to dupe Bigfoot researchers to send worthless hair for dough. I think any Bigfoot proponent who seriously thinks they have genetic material in the form of hair, blood, feces, bone, or other tissue should send it to Prof. Disotell at the University of New York. I don't think they should send it to Paulides or Biscardi. I think that would be a total fail. Again, I am allowed to think that.

[Hairy Man]

OK - I'm still not getting it. Back in 2007, I noted that Biscardi had excavated a clearly Native American burial. I called it unethical. I then became privy to the "dna report" that called the sample Homo Erectus. It was very, very clear that Biscardi had changed the data in that report to reflect the "Homo Erectus" link - i.e., he lied because a) we have no Homo Erectus DNA and b ) because he had violated the law and was trying to cover it up. There was no indication on that report that Ketchum's lab was used for that testing so I'm unclear why she is catching any grief on this. Does anyone know for sure, outside of Biscardi's own webpage, that he has ever used Ketchum's services? I do know that in 2008 during his Georgia hoax event he contacted me to find someone who could help him test DNA - if he already had a lab (Ketchum), why did he need a contact? I am also aware that he used the same "Homo Erectus" bit to try to convince those around the hoax that it was real.

Everything said/done/printed/thought by Biscardi is a lie - pay no attention to it. (and yes, if that's libel, so be it)

Otherwise, what I do know, is if Ketchum does submit a paper for publication to a reputable journal, we won't hear about it for some time. Publication of very important data are often years in the making.

reason for edit: the happy face that shows up with a b )

Edited October 10, 2010 by HairyMan

[kitakaze]

Understood.

But keep in mind, if Sylvia Browne was a member of this forum, you'd be in hot water here for that post.

In the spirit of making the new BFF a nicer place to be, could you try to tone down this kind of rhetoric? It's your call Kit, I'm asking nicely.

Respectfully, Spaz, I disagree. I have a position and I am defending it. Did I make a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person? No, I criticized David Paulides and Melba Ketchum. * I * am * allowed * Unless the BFF Steering Committee adjourns privately to ban such criticism as mine, I will excercise my freedom to state my opinions. Opinions are opinions. If I said Ketchum is definitely a hoaxer, then I would agree that it is wrong for me to state opinion as fact. I am very careful about that, you will notice. I think they have some shennanigans going on. I think if they were legit, they would have informed people of delays. Ketchum said in August that it would be a month or maybe a little more. Paulides made a point of telling people you can't rush science. Ketchum made it clear people will be charged for their specimens. She said she had been taking specimens since 1995. Paulides says he drew up a business plan for the hair samples and Ketchum. I am a skeptic. That means I am the opposite of credulous. You understand that I am going to get very suspicious, particularly when hear absurdities like the police officer feeling the earth shaking from Bigfoot walking away at 100 yards distance, right?

And as far as toning down my rhetoric, I bid you to see my words without Bigfoot proponent bias. Someone is accusing me of libel. I am defending myself and showing how I am not. Sylvia Browne is not a member here and I think it's safe to say that unless ripping off grieving families gets old, she never will. I think she is a toad. See how I am making a point about freely stating opinions? I get into rhetoric when someone infringes on my freedom. That's my nature. Rhetoric - The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively. Yes, I'll have some of that, please. Why should I not use language effectively and persuasively to make my point about not trying to infringe upon my rights to have opinions or try and intimidate me?

Surely, Spaz, you should know me well enough by now that I don't sit there like a sod and get rolled over by people trying shout me down with histrionics. I think Paulides, like Biscardi and his DNA claim, is doing some boonswoggling. I think I am doing a service to Bigfootery by encouraging Bigfoot proponents not to be duped and to send anything they want tested in the right direction. I think the guy with the absurd stories and the misconduct charge for soliciting celebrity autographs using his position as a police officer and the lady who can't tell human hair from animal hair even when the results come back 100% human are not the right direction. I am allowed.

[Guest River]

That's a good point, River. I can agree with you there. Still, Dr. Ketchum does have a lot to lose if she publishes something on the matter that is weak. HER money and reputation are directly linked with her expertise and credibility. If she publishes bumkum that is not well supported she's essentially shooting herself in the foot. Why would she do that? I doubt that she would make enough money out of her Bigfoot project to cover her losses if she failed. Dr. Meldrum is in a similar situation, though the sales from his book are no doubt helping a lot.

I agree with almost everything you said except for I think she has quite a lot to gain from dvd sales and/or her bigfoot related business? when you add it all up, shes probably doing pretty ok making such claims regardless of the what ifs. (was she on the location also? for how long? someone probably got paid to watch that as well)

Dr Meldrum doesnt seem to mind, and seems to profit from the bigfoot interest.

Edited October 10, 2010 by River

[indiefoot]

From post # 125

I encourage the critically minded people in Bigfootery to not be fooled by Paulides and his empty promises. Biscardi would have us believe Bigfoot is H. erectus based on some boonswoggle claims about DNA. I have spoken at length about this in an interview with Biscardi and Java Bob on Bigfoot Live Radio. These men were very cordial and friendly, but never for a second did I not think there was some Woods & Wildmen shennanigans going on. Paulides, who along with Biscardi, does business with Ketchum, is telling us that we are months away from announcing Bigfoot to the world as a real species. I think it Georgia Boys all over again. Ketchum said in August that they were a month, maybe a little more, away from the Earth shaking (like Paulides' garbage rummaging Bigfoot) announcement. It's into October and there has been no announcements of, "Oops. Sorry, hotly anticipating Bigfoot community. We've had some complications and are going to be a bit longer than we said." I think Paulides will probably read this and make some sort of announcement on his website. I think what they want is for Bigfooters all over North America to send in worthless stuff and pay them money for DNA testing that never actually gets done. I think if they had a huge bone and they were legitimate, they could tell you very quicly whether the bone was human or otherwise, or untestable due to degraded DNA. They did no such thing, just danced around with words and optimistic yet vague assurances. I think on January 1st, 2011 I will be telling a number of people, "I told you so."

Kitakaze, sorry for spelling your screen name wrong. The bolded part of this quote is what I am referring to. That sounds like you are accusing them of conspiring to commit a crime. Do you have evidence besides" I think there are shennanigans going on with Paulides, Ketchum, and Biscardi." You are asserting that the people who sent in their 200 dollars and various BF hair and tissue samples are being defrauded and that no tests are being performed. What led you to that specific conclusion?

You can say a great many things, but you can't accuse people of committing crimes unless you have evidence to support it.

[Guest ajciani]

The only thing that seems hinkey about Paulides is that the North American Bigfoot Search site and blog seem to use a lot of information derived from Bigfoot Ballyhoo. When I contacted Paulides, I did mention that Ballyhoo was not to be trusted. As of Oct. 8th, NA Bigfoot Search has a link to the Bigfoot Ballyhoo Baloney page.

Now, you might say that Paulides is too gullible, which is why he falls for things like Ballyhoo and Biscardi, but even so, being gullible does not preclude finding real bits and pieces of bigfoots. The only thing I would wonder about, is how many pieces of coyote hair, pig poop, deer bones, and etcetera Paulides went through before some came back positive for non-human primate.

If the work is at a sequencing stage, then they must have gotten some really good samples, and are highly certain that contamination is not a source of sub-human DNA. Sequencing can be done rather quickly now, but it is costly. Ideally, they have multiple samples from different bigfoots, such that they can show consistent patterns in the mtDNA and key genes within the normal DNA. And even better, sequence those same sections for the humans who may have handled the samples.

As to speed of publication, it depends a little on the reviewers and the editor. Typical publication time is about 6 months from when the paper is submitted. With modern digital publication, the paper may be available 2 to 3 months after submission, via DOI number. If the editor thinks the finding is significant, and the reviewer's comments are few or easily addressed, he might expedite the publication, or even recommend it for a journal with greater impact owned by the same publisher. A paper, "Genetic Evidence for a Population of North American Apes", might be in print within two months from the date of submission, as a rapid communication.

[kitakaze]

Now, you might say that Paulides is too gullible, which is why he falls for things like Ballyhoo and Biscardi, but even so, being gullible does not preclude finding real bits and pieces of bigfoots.

Wait, this applies to Biscardi, too, right? Biscardi and his company and network of Bigfoot proponents have every chance of finding real Bigfoots as any others, right?

Did Biscardi scoop Paulides, and if not why? I call hooey on Biscardi's site claiming Bigfoot to genetically be shown to be H. erectus. It's bonkers, IMO. But how do we know that Biscardi didn't really scoop Paulides?

[southernyahoo]

I think it's weird, yet funny that a vet could fail so badly with human hair. See how that works with the strong claims meeting strong scrutiny? That is the inevitable nature of informed skepticism.

I think it is weird and funny that you would call your admitted layman opinion about DNA sequencing or the appearance of hair strong scrutiny.

[Guest]

I have an idea. I think I have an adequate understanding of the basics of genetics. I am not a doctor like parnassus is, but I am a human evolution nerd, and thus I have to be up on my genetics. That was why I ate up Todd Disotell's presentations and his interview with Ben Radford, Blake Smith, and Karen Stollznow. Those people had great questions for Prof. Disotell, and I learned a lot of things I didn't know about DNA testing and particularly how it relates to Bigfoot.

Jodie, please feel free to point out what you thinks is my biggest misconception of genetics, and either parnassus or I will tell you if we think that is correct. I am no expert, so I would take parnassus' knowledge at higher value than mine. Ketchum said they had a bone and that it was huge. She also said they had a few hairs with follicles to test. She said they need the follicles, and particularly the skin tags. As I understand it from the New York University Professor of Anthropology, mtDNA typing analyses are to the advancement of being able to use just the shaft. Ketchum blundered with Josh Gates and insisted the human hair they found must not be human because it was coarser looking than horse hair. Check the picture I posted. It was fine and wispy. I call that a fail. I think it's weird, yet funny that a vet could fail so badly with human hair. See how that works with the strong claims meeting strong scrutiny? That is the inevitable nature of informed skepticism.

She says they have a huge bone and some hair follicles to test. Lickety-split and Bob's your uncle, her lab, and an outside independent lab should be able to confirm the samples as being species specific and matching each other in unknown species. This is one of the forms of reliable evidence I am waiting for. I am not seeing promise in the promises made here. I think if this veterinarian had any sense, maybe she shouldn't have business associations with notorious hoaxers. That isn't unreasonable for me to think, is it?

Paulides has already been connected to one scam involving using his position as a police officer to hoard celebrity autographs. He was formally charged with it. He said it was all a misunderstanding. I think it was pretty clear cut. I am allowed to think so. I think Paulides is plowing through Bigfootery and making a mess wherever he goes. I think he developed a new scam to dupe Bigfoot researchers to send worthless hair for dough. I think any Bigfoot proponent who seriously thinks they have genetic material in the form of hair, blood, feces, bone, or other tissue should send it to Prof. Disotell at the University of New York. I don't think they should send it to Paulides or Biscardi. I think that would be a total fail. Again, I am allowed to think that.

Yes, you are allowed to say what you want, I apologize. I got the impression that you thought we all thought Bigfoot was human and what they had was human samples, without waiting for what the results showed, and prematurely calling it fraud. I did not think that was right. What they probably have is a bunch of specimens from a lot of known things, and possibly a few unknowns that don't match. It is going to take awhile to figure out what the unknowns are, if possible, and that doesn't happen lickety-split. I'm not looking for an announcement that they have Bigfoot DNA. I don't follow the reasoning behind sending anything to Paulides, that doesn't make any sense. If not Dr. Disotell, why not send it to Dr. Ketchum's lab directly and bypass the middle man? I am curious as to what samples she chose to use, how that decision was made in the first place. Is she using what Paulides solicits? So what would be the benefit for Dr. Ketchum to be involved with Biscardi or Paulides whether it was a scam or otherwise? Are you sure about everyone's relationship or is this just an assumption? How are they involved with each other exactly?

As for Josh's hair, they may have edited a lot of other things she said for the sake of entertainment. If I am not mistaken, they have programs for hair comparison and identification. They may not have shown that part if she uses any kind of program like that. I saw the show you are talking about and noticed what you were saying but didn't give it much thought because it was just a show for entertainment. I don't know Kit, she may be kind of like Don Quixote, with the best of intentions. I never intended to contribute any money to her project anyway. I don't think you need to worry about anyone else being disappointed or a victim of a scam. I don't think you are giving the bigfoot supporters enough credit for common sense. I didn't know who Biscardi or Paulides were up until last year but it doesn't even make sense for them to be scamming folks if there was a chance for felony charges. They seem to be doing fine as they are, attention seekers maybe, tend to be the kind that jump on the latest bandwagon. I can't see the benefit for them other than notoriety by association with Dr. Ketchum if she is successful. How much money can you really make on hair balls versus the risk of felony charges if it is deliberate fraud? Maybe they are all in over their heads. Who's volunteering to assist them in verifying what they find, if anything? Is it this Dr. Disotell?

[Guest]

Ok, can I just ask a question, wouldn't Dr. Ketchum make more money from owning a lab versus jumping on the bigfoot wagon? Even if she writes a book, is that going to allow her to make that much more for it to be worth this trouble, unless she had a real interest in the subject? The only people I know that can actually make a living writing books are the well known fictional authors. BMOC disagreed with me on that one, but I don't think I have ever heard of anyone getting rich writing bigfoot books or doing anything else related to bigfoot.

Edit- Does 200 hundred dollars sound like a bad price for analysis to anyone else? I think that is very reasonable. Did the lab not do the analysis after the $200.00 was paid? I'm really not understanding the problem with this, other than sending it to Paulides, which is just one extra person in the chain that isn't needed.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Jodie