Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Homo Denisova. There's one. And you still have to back up your opinion with fact for it to mean anything. Tim B. Didn't we have an entire thread not too long ago about examples of animal species declared based on DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Meldrum doesn't think much of it, therefore should we? Because we are individuals, and have our own minds and brains. If being a follower is your flavor, then stick with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Because we are individuals, and have our own minds and brains. If being a follower is your flavor, then stick with it. Taken out of context. Someone asked what the flurry was about, it was the topic in a nut shell. Edited November 27, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 According to Wikipedia, it seems that they can. 27 years of research in genetics, including forensics (from the press release) should qualify her to be a geneticist. Everyone seems to forget that her lab was one of those who did genetic remains identification for 9/11 victims. She's not a vet who does some genetics work, she's a geneticist who mostly does animal dna testing. Well it's obvious from what dr meldrum posted on Facebook that he thinks ketchums new publicist is a nut bag, I hope ketchum isn't in the same frame of mind as her publicist, she may have to ditch this one as well Could you (or someone) shoot me a link to his FB page? I can't find it, just his profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 OUCH. Here they go.... http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/11/here-comes-tongue-in-cheek-comments.html?showComment=1353987104872#c3331637236378087089 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Here's some new reportage. ... The second, filed under "pseudoscience," is here. It's filled with the usual snide incredulity that leaves me hoping against all reason that Ketchum delivers the goods. Did you note that the blogger couldn't even get the claim right in the blog post? According to the blogger, she claimed it was human/primate DNA, not human/non-human hominid DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Everyone seems to forget that her lab was one of those who did genetic remains identification for 9/11 victims. She's not a vet who does some genetics work, she's a geneticist who mostly does animal dna testing. Could you (or someone) shoot me a link to his FB page? I can't find it, just his profile. Don Jeffrey Meldrum on facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Did you note that the blogger couldn't even get the claim right in the blog post? According to the blogger, she claimed it was human/primate DNA, not human/non-human hominid DNA. I saw that. I fear it's going to get ugly (and I'm not talking about Erickson's high-definition footage). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 OUCH. Here they go.... http://bigfooteviden...637236378087089 This is just the beginning... Discredit and create lunacy surrounding the characters and not argue the science before there is science to argue. Go back to sleep lil sheepeez. Let the ad hominemisms begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'm confused. All I've been seeing for pages, UNTIL NOW, was that the science was solid, and as long as she did the "process" properly, that it passes peer-review, that nothing else will matter, because you can't argue with the DNA. What's all the freakin' out about NOW? Somewhere a few pages back I posted what I was told was the problem. She may have BF dna, but she's trying to shape the paper to make the dna data say something it doesn't. This is what has been holding the paper back. She's claiming too much of the wrong thing, when the paper SHOULD be a straightforward presentation of a new primate or hominid based on DNA. Yes, the DNA is "the thing" that we should all be focusing on, but increasingly the reporting is on the outre claims rather than the soundness of the science. If I were inclined to suspect foul play, I would almost suspect a "poison pill" operation. Take good findings and associate so much crap with them no one will touch them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Did we not see this coming. I look for all manners of ad hominem to fly. Lets keep our eyes on the ball, not on the smoke and mirrors that are sure to billow. Those comments (if accurate) and if from Dr. M are not very professional, regardless of the intent/truth. If only one thing comes out of this we will surely get to see whos who and what kind of character they really claim to be, and what are in fact the agendas at play...if any. Preach it ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Those comments (if accurate) and if from Dr. M are not very professional, regardless of the intent/truth. What was "unprofessional" about them? He accurately described what appears to be the situation, and told everyone to wait for the paper to come out before going nuts over it. Sounds like a very professional position to me. Meldrum seems way to choosy in his study with regards to just what a bigfoot is, his mind seems it was made up ape a long time ago. He's also said pretty openly that he's willing to reexamine that if the data is convincing enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I didn't see this posted here, Source : Bigfoot Lunch Club http://http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/11/first-bigfoot-dna-peer-review-results.html?showComment=1353987036033#c6655282616616618048 DNA Consulting Company is Intrigued by Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Posted by Guy Edwards Roberta Estes formed DNAeXplain to offer individual analysis of DNA results and genealogical assistance Thanks to Thom Cantrall for bringing this to our attention. dna-explained.com is a blogging channel for DNAeXplain, a DNA genetics consulting company that offers individual written analysis of DNA results. While we have had opinions from Ketchum proponents and Ketchum detractors, Bigfooters and non-bigfooters. We haven't had an independent DNA expert react to the Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA press release. Roberta Estes asks some very interesting questions and shed some insight to what Melba Ketchum may be saying between the lines.Her first questions are in the excerpt below. This begs several questions. Is all of the mitochondrial DNA the same, inferring a single maternal ancestor? They have sequenced 20 different mitochondrial samples. Given that the mitochondrial DNA is reportedly identical to that of modern humans, we can presume, one would think, that the mitochondrial DNA is Native American, so a member of haplogroup A, B, C, D or X. Hopefully the forthcoming paper will be more specific. She continues on to read what she deems subtle and non-subtle messages, There are subtle and not so subtle messages buried here as well. Obviously, for the team to acquire 20 samples to process, there has to be a population of these creatures living in North America. Of course, everyone has heard of Sasquatch and seen photos and videos, but until this, nothing has been terribly convincing. There has been no smoking gun. If this research is valid and passes peer review, it not only confirms that Sasquatch is real, it vindicates many of the people who have had “sightings†over the years. It becomes the smoking gun. But as with much science, it raises more questions than it answers. For example, are there any non-admixed Sasquatch progenitors left, meaning the males that founded the Sasquatch line with the human female? How would we tell the difference? This of course implies that some sort of pre-hominid species existed on this continent before Native Americans arrived from Asia and had existed separate from hominids for a long time. Is there other evidence of this creature in North America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) What was "unprofessional" about them? He accurately described what appears to be the situation, and told everyone to wait for the paper to come out before going nuts over it. Sounds like a very professional position to me. While I don't see anything wrong with it, it does come across as unprofessional to people who don't know about the paper or doubt Bigfoots existence. Even Dr. Meldrum said it's unprofessional. I think that is something worth considering. Edited November 27, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Somewhere a few pages back I posted what I was told was the problem. She may have BF dna, but she's trying to shape the paper to make the dna data say something it doesn't. This is what has been holding the paper back. She's claiming too much of the wrong thing, when the paper SHOULD be a straightforward presentation of a new primate or hominid based on DNA. Winner winner Bigfoot dinner. She's tried to turn it into something it isn't too make herself look like the discoverer of a new species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts