southernyahoo Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Nor would I....not sure how the wheels fell off the wagon on THAT one. Bigfoot threw the "human wrench" into the DNA machine. You really can't blame anyone for that, if that's what he is. Sykes will need a novel male lineage to fix it, if he has no novel mtDNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 SY thank you very much for that. I tend to agree with you and am disappointed your sample didn't get to Sykes (correct?). You're welcome, yes that is correct, unless Meldrum sent on what I sent him without my knowledge. I wouldn't fault him on that if he did, since that is why I contacted him in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Ketchum apparently gave a Houston Chronicle reporter some of her samples to be independently tested. They came back positive...ly possum. http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/07/i-had-the-bigfoot-dna-tested-in-a-highly-reputable-lab-heres-what-i-found/ A funny thing happened [in February] — Ketchum called me. We spoke for nearly an hour, and after the bad things I had written about her research, I was impressed that she bore no grudge and wanted to nonetheless engage with me. It was a good and constructive conversation. I am first and foremost a journalist, and I figured if there was even a 1 percent chance that the Bigfoot evidence was real, it was worth my time to check the story out. So I agreed to be an intermediary between Ketchum and a highly reputable geneticist in Texas, whom I trusted and knew personally. I also knew that this geneticist was first and foremost a scientist, and if there was even a 1 percent chance the Bigfoot evidence was real, he’d want check out the story. I asked, and he was willing to approach the evidence with an open mind. (Why am I maintaining my source’s anonymity? Because some of his peers would question his engagement on such a topic, believing it unworthy of valuable research time. But make no mistake, he is a top-notch scientist at the top of his field.) The deal was this: I would hold off writing anything until this geneticist had his lab test the DNA samples obtained by Ketchum that were purportedly a novel and non-human species. If the evidence backed up Ketchum’s claims, I had a blockbuster story. My geneticist source would have a hand in making the scientific discovery of the decade, or perhaps the century. Ketchum would be vindicated. In short, we would all have been winners. Alas, I met my geneticist friend this past week and I asked about the Bigfoot DNA. It was, he told me, a mix of opossum and other species. No find of the century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 ^Any chance that you could describe the type of sample submitted? (blood/hair/saliva/etc) Also, did she only submit 1 sample? By chance do you know the sample number? Any pics of the sample as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) Good follow up, thanks for linking here. But the source is anonymous and as noted above little detail, although with valid explanation for that - still in today's state of disbelief, sadly. Tick, tock... Edited July 1, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 A thought. If this sample was one that she used for her paper, the data should be included in the paper. I forget, did any of the members here, when doing their own BLAST's, come up with possum for any of them? The results should correllate, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 ^Any chance that you could describe the type of sample submitted? (blood/hair/saliva/etc) Also, did she only submit 1 sample? By chance do you know the sample number? Any pics of the sample as well? I'd suggest emailing the reporter those questions; I doubt he reads the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 That's cool, if you don't know, that's fine. I'm not going to waste my time trying to dig up info from someone with an un-named source. I'll stack it on the pile of "unsubstantiated claims" along with everything else. I'm still penning an e-mail to the guy that wrote THIS story: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 It's pretty sad when the debunking scientific findings can't even give the name of the scientist doing the work or show and describe the sample. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Agreed. And as I said in the other thread....what sample? Where? What facility? I bet we never hear another word from this so called "reporter." I think he is full of it....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Agreed. And as I said in the other thread....what sample? Where? What facility? I bet we never hear another word from this so called "reporter." I think he is full of it....... So this reporter, his editor, and the paper's factcheckers are all risking their careers to lie about an already discredited report because...why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 ^^^I know, right? But if this reporter came back with "unidentified primate" you better believe proponents would be backing up this story til they were blue in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 2, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted July 2, 2013 ^^^I know, right? But if this reporter came back with "unidentified primate" you better believe proponents would be backing up this story til they were blue in the face. Not really. I don't see why anyone would take notice of anythng either way when its " he said this but I can't tell you who he is " And excuse me for not necessarily be living everything a journalist writes, especially when they have " unnamed sources " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) To me the unknown sources problem is not nearly as egregious as the "opposum and Other animal". If the study was so scientific why stop at opposum and not report the rest? Incomplete science and science reporting to be sure. Edited July 2, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) @SS, 10 samples is not statistically sound to base a decision on. Need more data points! @SY, have you submitted your hair to any place else? I don't believe i made any claim of statistical significance. What statistical test would you like applied to this. I was making a simple declaration. I tested 10 samples, all came back known mammals. what about that statement needs statistical support? heres an analogy for you. say you touch a hot stove, and it burns your hand. so you touch it again, and get burned again, and you do it again. same result! So you figure, well 3 times in not statistically significant, so I need to keep touching it, because sooner or later I will not get burned, and that will disprove the theory that a hot stove burns my hand! At what point would you abandon your statistical significance argument, and stop touching the stove?? Since we haven't erectus DNA (well I guess Denisova or Hidelbergensis count..do we have DNA from them? I have forgotten..) Actually We have a more or less complete genome from the denisovan sample, similar in quality to modern genomes. Edited July 2, 2013 by slowstepper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts