Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[bipedalist]

Yah, "abundantly clear" in any statement = the biggest oxymoron in BFing to date.

[Guest]

Man...I thought Fonzy jumping over the Great White was bad...yeesh! 70's TV...

Stock footage..Tiger Shark

[Guest]

DNA evidence is useless unless you can verify the source. The only way to verify the source is to pluck it off the body of a bf. Otherwise, it is useless. In a court proceeding, you have dna of unknown origin from a crime scene. You then take a sample from the suspect and then compare the two. Without the sample from the suspect, the dna uncovered at the crime scene is useless. You have nothing to compare it to. That is the problem with purported bf DNA. Some people have sugguested that the DNA studies show that bf is a human. That obviously begs the question of how do you know that the sample did not come from a human. A scientific journal will not publish a paper based upon dna evidence from a non-verifiable source. Again, there will be no peer reviewed paper published by Dr. Ketchum on the subject of DNA. There will be no game changing videos released by Erickson. I hate to disappoint but those facts are abundantly clear.

No disrespect intended, but aren't you making a definitive statement without all the evidence? The facts you present are based on supposition. The only way to accept your statement is with empirical evidence, of which there is none. In other words, we would have to see the paper and video to declare your facts abundantly clear.

Now, you may be certain about your opinion of the paper and video, and I'll accept that without question, but if you're presenting it as fact, I'm afraid it too wouldn't hold up in court.

JMHO

[Guest]

DNA evidence is useless unless you can verify the source. The only way to verify the source is to pluck it off the body of a bf. Otherwise, it is useless. In a court proceeding, you have dna of unknown origin from a crime scene. You then take a sample from the suspect and then compare the two. Without the sample from the suspect, the dna uncovered at the crime scene is useless. You have nothing to compare it to. That is the problem with purported bf DNA. Some people have sugguested that the DNA studies show that bf is a human. That obviously begs the question of how do you know that the sample did not come from a human. A scientific journal will not publish a paper based upon dna evidence from a non-verifiable source. Again, there will be no peer reviewed paper published by Dr. Ketchum on the subject of DNA. There will be no game changing videos released by Erickson. I hate to disappoint but those facts are abundantly clear.

You're just guessing, hoping to be right so you can say that you where down the road. You know no more than the rest of us do. We are all clueless when it comes to knowing exactly what they have at this point, that is the only thing "abundantly clear"

As for the DNA the purported human claim is from the Mitochondrial testing only, No one will know with entirety what they truly are or are not until results from the Nucleotide testing are published. Also you cannot compare DNA evidence in criminal case in court to DNA evidence regarding species identification. DNA results can never stand alone as evidence to convict, but they can stand alone as edivence to overturn a conviction in some cases . In a criminal case you already have a suspect yes to match DNA to, you KNOW what you have. With species identification they KNOW what they have in the gene bank, when you find something you KNOW you DONT have in the gene bank that is significant.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[Guest HairyGreek]

Stock footage..Tiger Shark

Take another look...stock footage of a carcharodon carcharias my friend. Check it out on YouTube. Would post you a vid link, but I am at work and it is blocked in these parts!

[Guest]

Take another look...stock footage of a carcharodon carcharias my friend. Check it out on YouTube. Would post you a vid link, but I am at work and it is blocked in these parts!

Okay...

Anyway lol... Loved the SMDM throwback, I had all the toys when I was a kid and never missed the show. back then that was my favorite episode.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[Guest HairyGreek]

Yeah, kind of embarresing I know that...

SMDM was a super-sweet link. I was a little too young though and went more for Buck Rogers (mmmmm, Erin Grey)

[TimB]

Okay...

Anyway lol... Loved the SMDM throwback, I had all the toys when I was a kid and never missed the show. back then that was my favorite episode.

Fonzy should have given the thumbs up at the top of his jump.

Tim B.

[Guest]

TimB wrote:

"no evidence+ third party hearsay= best scam yet. Beautifully orchestrated, but not all that different than the Georgia boys. WAY more sophisticated. Hats off to those who had us all stringing along".

I don't know exactly how this will turn out but I can guarantee you one thing - it's not a scam.

If it was it would be the most long-winded (even boring) scam of all time.

Scams abound in bigfootery but this one has none of the hallmarks.

[Guest HairyGreek]

I'm curious, how old are you guys? Seriously?

Somebody +1 this? Good Lord...get a sense of humor.

[TimB]

TimB wrote:

"no evidence+ third party hearsay= best scam yet. Beautifully orchestrated, but not all that different than the Georgia boys. WAY more sophisticated. Hats off to those who had us all stringing along".

I don't know exactly how this will turn out but I can guarantee you one thing - it's not a scam.

If it was it would be the most long-winded (even boring) scam of all time.

Scams abound in bigfootery but this one has none of the hallmarks.

Absolutely no evidence to back up what you say. Perhaps it's a mastery of the hoaxing art? The only thing that could change this is evidence.

Tim B.

[slabdog]

when we are referring to "jumping the shark"....I am assuming we are speaking directly of this thread?

____________________

back to patiently waiting mode

[TimB]

Perhaps Godot was bigfoot in ancestry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evTE18YolSY&feature=related

Tim B.

[southernyahoo]

Perhaps it's a mastery of the hoaxing art? The only thing that could change prove this is evidence.

Tim B.

Try that.

[TimB]

That works too. I was referring to changing my equation.

Tim B.