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

[Guest slimwitless]

Sometimes people just connect.

Maybe there's a love triangle.

Ketchum

â–²

Paulides Sasquatch

[Guest Crowlogic]

I'll confess I knew nothing of this story but the fact that it's turned out the way it did drives a few more nails into the Bigfoot nonsense coffin. Had I known about it I would have most likely said if the good Dr shows she'll show up with nothing of consequence. Maybe she's hanging out with Enoch down in Florida.

[Guest slimwitless]

I'll confess I knew nothing of this story but the fact that it's turned out the way it did drives a few more nails into the Bigfoot nonsense coffin. Had I known about it I would have most likely said if the good Dr shows she'll show up with nothing of consequence. Maybe she's hanging out with Enoch down in Florida.

Turned out the way it did? By any objective measure this story is still unfolding.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Turned out the way it did? By any objective measure this story is still unfolding.

And these stories unfold and unfold for years on end. Does that not indicate that something is not right with the picture?

[Guest slimwitless]

And these stories unfold and unfold for years on end. Does that not indicate that something is not right with the picture?

Many scientific studies last for years. The shooting supposedly happened one year ago (and none of us heard about it until late June or early July). I'm keeping an open mind. It really hasn't been that long when you consider what they're trying to accomplish. I'm not saying you're wrong but I am saying the safe bet doesn't have much of a payoff.

[southernyahoo]

And these stories unfold and unfold for years on end. Does that not indicate that something is not right with the picture?

The hoaxes don't carry on this long Crow, the evidence is tangible, and this involves genuine scientists, That's your clue about this picture.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Real scientists? Real scientists know other real scientists and have real access to real labs. Also being on the inside would expedite the analysis of the supposed tissue. It doesn't take 6 months to analyse a tissue sample and DNA profile. Something as potentially earth shaking as real tissue from a real unknown animal would IMO light a fire under all those in contact it to get rapid confirmation of this.

However the familiar pattern is already in place and IMO nothing will come of it. It never does.

[Guest parnassus]

Maybe there's a love triangle.

Ketchum

â–²

Paulides Sasquatch

I don't think Bigfoot is physically involved in the relationship. Other than that I think you have it.

How does Human DNA prove the existance of bigfoot? Human DNA is not that hard to find. We obtained some DNA in the woods. It was human. Therefore, bigfoot is human. See the prolem. How is it being proved that the dna sample is from a bigfoot?

Exactly.

Stubstad tried to make the case that although the first two mtDNAs (AZ toenail and ?KY blood) were human, they were very similar, and according to Stubstad, that was very unlikely to be a coincidence. From that (which was wrong, by the way), he thought it was likely they were Bigfoots.

Yes, that is whack reasoning.

[Guest slimwitless]

To be fair, the bit about human mtDNA is from Stubstad not Ketchum (and she has publicly distanced herself from his comments). It's also true that we don't know whether those samples are even included in the study.

As far as Stubstad, he no longer posts here but he did write a rebuttal to your previous critique on Lindsay's blog (you probably already know that). That's just for your information. I'm not vouching for the man's opinions.

Anyway, the suggestion that this all stems from human DNA "found in the woods" doesn't match up with anything I've heard.

[southernyahoo]

Real scientists? Real scientists know other real scientists and have real access to real labs. Also being on the inside would expedite the analysis of the supposed tissue. It doesn't take 6 months to analyse a tissue sample and DNA profile. Something as potentially earth shaking as real tissue from a real unknown animal would IMO light a fire under all those in contact it to get rapid confirmation of this.

However the familiar pattern is already in place and IMO nothing will come of it. It never does.

I think the familiar pattern stems from the info of the evidence being collected being public before the published paper on the results hits the press. Other than that, the process is the same as any other "scientific" discovery. This is'nt some ordinary discovery of a new insect though, I doubt you would say one word about such an incident if it happened to you, unless you had the paper done, and the journal had given you the publish date.

[Guest Jodie]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, was the backer who financed the sequencing for the samples Wally Hershom and did he finance all of the samples with the exception of Erickson's? Or was it just the ones submitted by the OP? If he financed the sequencing for most of the samples then I don't understand why he would utilize Dr. Ketchum's lab and services if money wasn't an object. I would have contracted out with a more complex lab.

[gigantor]

For what it's worth, and not that it's a new revelation or anything, I heard from a birdie in a plausible position to know, that "the sample" has been analyzed by more than five(!) labs and that they all concur... not saying I believe it.

Edited October 20, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest slimwitless]

I've heard similar rumors about repeated testing of the "sample". Multiple tests from multiple labs (all with the same result).

[Guest parnassus]

As far as Stubstad, he no longer posts here but he did write a rebuttal to your previous critique on Lindsay's blog (you probably already know that). That's just for your information. I'm not vouching for the man's opinions.

I have been following that blog but can't find what you are referring to. Is it a comment? To which post? Can you give a link?

Thanks

p

Ps I was interested by a statement there that they believed the specimens came from Native Americans.

Edited October 20, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest slimwitless]

I have been following that blog but can't find what you are referring to. Is it a comment? To which post? Can you give a link?

Thanks

p

Ps I was interested by a statement there that they believed the specimens came from Native Americans.

You will find Stubstad's rebuttal buried here. Just search for 'Parnassus'.

The rumor I heard is that they told the various labs that the DNA samples were Native American. The subtext seemed to be they didn't want the labs to know what they were looking for (and probably, based on what others have suggested, so the labs would test using human primers). We're into anonymous source territory AFAIK.

Edited to fix link.

Edited October 20, 2011 by slimwitless