JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags bigfoot , dna , Ed Smith , Melba Ketchum

Reply
Old 12th December 2008, 05:42 PM   #1
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,179
Bigfoot DNA

Does anyone have any information on Ed Smith and Bigfoot DNA? Here is a post from BFF.

"For what it's worth, the 'Ed Smith' research project on the MABRC website has relatively recently received purported BF DNA testing results which tentatively indicate approximately 78% primate/gorilla and almost 3% human content. Admittedly this is at considerable variance with the Snelgrove Lake/Meldrum DNA findings of 2005 which only had a small sample of 300 genomes to examine. Further information and results to be forthcoming in the near future from the Ed Smith research findings.*"

"* Ed Smith's research documentation is the best I have yet seen. Unfortunately, his location site was apparently harassed and raided by persons associated with a 'high profile California-based bigfoot research organization' (you can easily guess who the culprits are - those who can not be named), resulting in the cessation of any further research reporting as of December 3 of this year. They have had to go underground until their research findings are complete."


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...2&#entry505351
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 12th December 2008 at 05:44 PM. Reason: Added Footnote
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 05:57 PM   #2
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,865
>>>which tentatively indicate approximately 78% primate/gorilla and almost 3% human content.

Oh my gawd

where is that report and dataset posted? ( thats not even a proper reporting format)
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 06:03 PM   #3
inn
Muse
 
inn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 612
And 19% possum.
inn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 06:06 PM   #4
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,865
Good catch- what was the other 19% I wonder? EBE prehaps?
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 06:33 PM   #5
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 53,771
Originally Posted by longtabber pe View Post
good catch- what was the other 19% i wonder? Ebe prehaps?
chud
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 07:14 PM   #6
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,179
Well, at least we've been assured that it's a extremely professional research team! Looks like the results will hold up to the most rigorous scrutiny.

"Because of the apparently very high quality of the ongoing research efforts over several years, no information has 'leaked' into the public sphere to date. This speaks well for the professionalism and dedication of all of the individuals on Ed Smith's various research teams; covering up to 5 different locations, mostly in Oklahoma.

Because they have kept a tight rein on things the mainstream media has been kept entirely out of the loop - exactly where it should be - until all documentation and experimental repetition has been achieved and concluded.

What I can say is that their intention is to temporarily capture a juvenile BF for the purpose of filming the team of credentialed scientists as they take blood, tissue and hair samples for testing; after which the individual will be immediately released, unharmed, back into his own original territory. This will facilitate the scientific identification of the species once and for all. We all wait with 'bated breath."
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 08:24 PM   #7
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,865
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Well, at least we've been assured that it's a extremely professional research team! Looks like the results will hold up to the most rigorous scrutiny.

"Because of the apparently very high quality of the ongoing research efforts over several years, no information has 'leaked' into the public sphere to date. This speaks well for the professionalism and dedication of all of the individuals on Ed Smith's various research teams; covering up to 5 different locations, mostly in Oklahoma.

Because they have kept a tight rein on things the mainstream media has been kept entirely out of the loop - exactly where it should be - until all documentation and experimental repetition has been achieved and concluded.

What I can say is that their intention is to temporarily capture a juvenile BF for the purpose of filming the team of credentialed scientists as they take blood, tissue and hair samples for testing; after which the individual will be immediately released, unharmed, back into his own original territory. This will facilitate the scientific identification of the species once and for all. We all wait with 'bated breath."

I wonder if they realize that such a film could lead to their arrest? ( depending on the trapping laws and DNR regulations of the state)

I wonder why one would need "credentialed scientists" to take samples? ( thats usually a technicians job)

I just fear we will wind up with yet another super duper secret.....well..... nothing
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 08:31 PM   #8
sanguine
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
"For what it's worth, the 'Ed Smith' research project on the MABRC website has relatively recently received purported BF DNA testing results which tentatively indicate approximately 78% primate/gorilla and almost 3% human content.
That's nonsensical.

There's no such thing, in describing calculated evolutionary relatedness, as X% organism A, Y% organism B. If you had really done some relevant DNA analyses (say, perhaps looking at mitochondrial DNA and the 16S ribosomal RNA sequence), you could say that it is X% similar to humans, Y% similar to gorilla, and Z% similar to mouse (and so forth), where the numbers would be in the high 90s if the organism you were testing were some intermediate between humans and other primates, and lower for the mouse.

You can't say something has 3% human DNA content.* It's cheap paperback novel (by an author who couldn't be bothered to do basic research) nonsense.

*Unless, perhaps, you are sequencing something that recently ATE a human, and you've accidentally sequenced its stomach contents along with the organism itself. Notably, these requires that you pureed the bigfoot first. Seems unlikely.
sanguine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 08:36 PM   #9
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
LONGTABBER PE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,865
Originally Posted by sanguine View Post
That's nonsensical.
Consider the source and subject. Thats BF "science" in all of its raving glory.
LONGTABBER PE is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 09:11 PM   #10
sanguine
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Consider the source and subject. Thats BF "science" in all of its raving glory.
I know. But I thought I should point out, since random readers might not know, that that specific element of the quote was utter nonsense, since it's in my field (biology that is, not technobabble).
sanguine is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 09:28 PM   #11
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
 
Crowlogic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Crows Nest At Large
Posts: 1,379
There isn't any Bigfoot DNA
__________________
Words are weapons, sharpen the knives!
Crowlogic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 10:09 PM   #12
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
There isn't any Bigfoot DNA
Log, you mime skepticism very well. The problem is that considering you believe Bigfoots went extinct early in the last century (your thinly veiled belief in the PGF notwithstanding), it doesn't seem to be consistent with your beliefs. If Bigfoot went extinct less than 100 years ago then it wouldn't be unreasonable to think Bigfoot DNA might be out there somehwere to be discovered.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 10:40 PM   #13
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,927
Originally Posted by Crowlogic View Post
There isn't any Bigfoot DNA
Which there would be in abundance by now, if there was such a thing as a bigfoot. According to the bleevers the damned things are everywhere.

Why is it that the vast majority of people start with the simple fact stated here by Crowlogic and easily conclude that there's no such critter, and yet others seem compelled somehow to start from a totally imaginary point where bigfoots MUST exist and then mangle what little "evidence" there is into supporting their contention that the DNA is just about to be identified?

Is it reasonable to see this as being similar to a religion, in that adherents are pretty sure that their bizarre claims will be borne out by science, any day now?

Pharaoh says:

"What phools these mortals be."

ETA: I'm aware that Crowlogic has a reason for the "no DNA" statement that isn't "no such creature ever existed", but I felt it better left alone.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum

Last edited by Akhenaten; 12th December 2008 at 10:45 PM. Reason: As stated.
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 10:50 PM   #14
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
According to the bleevers the damned things are everywhere.
Like, really everywhere:

Mangani's Bigfoot Maps.

Just consider every one of those countless dots as an opportunity for some shred of reliable evidence.

Nada. Bupkis. Nani mo nai.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2008, 11:38 PM   #15
manofthesea
2wu4u
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,563
19 pct skunk.

A'ohe.
manofthesea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2008, 06:56 AM   #16
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Virginia City
Posts: 3,974
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Why is it that the vast majority of people start with the simple fact stated here by Crowlogic and easily conclude that there's no such critter, and yet others seem compelled somehow to start from a totally imaginary point where bigfoots MUST exist and then mangle what little "evidence" there is into supporting their contention that the DNA is just about to be identified?
Boredom?
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2008, 07:20 AM   #17
manofthesea
2wu4u
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,563
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Which there would be in abundance by now, if there was such a thing as a bigfoot. According to the bleevers the damned things are everywhere.

That's indivisible bigfoot.
manofthesea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2008, 07:21 AM   #18
manofthesea
2wu4u
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,563
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Why is it that the vast majority of people start with the simple fact stated here by Crowlogic and easily conclude that there's no such critter, and yet others seem compelled somehow to start from a totally imaginary point where bigfoots MUST exist and then mangle what little "evidence" there is into supporting their contention that the DNA is just about to be identified?


.
Which evidence is that?

Concerning the covert DNA operation, what does that entail? Blacked out trailer windows, "those chemical drums are DNA primers"...

Last edited by manofthesea; 13th December 2008 at 07:25 AM.
manofthesea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2008, 01:33 AM   #19
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_Yf4zz-yo
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2008, 09:10 AM   #20
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 34,859
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
"For what it's worth, the 'Ed Smith' research project on the MABRC website has relatively recently received purported BF DNA testing results which tentatively indicate approximately 78% primate/gorilla and almost 3% human content.
And the rest is bull.
__________________
The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.

"Scientists have a poor understanding of science." - Justintime
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 04:36 PM   #21
parnassus
Master Poster
 
parnassus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,566
The latest DNA claims are being made by ex-cop and author David Paulides ("paw LYE dess"?) and Dr. Melba Ketchum, a Ph.D vet/entrepreneur in Texas, who branched out into the so-called forensic DNA market for identifying your mutt's parents and finding stolen horses, etc etc. Ketchum collaborated on the great Yetsploitation brouhaha over the hair from some TV show, that didn't look human, according to her, but had kind of like human DNA.
Paulides and Ketchum are touting some new findings and promising some peer-reviewed article in the spring of 2011.
From what I can read and surmise, it seems as if they are going to try and make the case that bigfoot is very similar to human and very similar in DNA to human, possibly indistinguishable. I think this is the inevitable direction for bigfooting to go, as it more or less obviates the issue of the missing body, so to speak....we've been finding bigfoot biological specimens all along, the reasoning would be, we just mistook them for human. It's totally win-win for everyone but Meldrum and his ape ideas.
__________________
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."---Earl Warren

Last edited by parnassus; 1st November 2010 at 04:45 PM.
parnassus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 05:39 PM   #22
Mahaha
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 121
Originally Posted by sanguine View Post
That's nonsensical.

There's no such thing, in describing calculated evolutionary relatedness, as X% organism A, Y% organism B. If you had really done some relevant DNA analyses (say, perhaps looking at mitochondrial DNA and the 16S ribosomal RNA sequence), you could say that it is X% similar to humans, Y% similar to gorilla, and Z% similar to mouse (and so forth), where the numbers would be in the high 90s if the organism you were testing were some intermediate between humans and other primates, and lower for the mouse.

You can't say something has 3% human DNA content.* It's cheap paperback novel (by an author who couldn't be bothered to do basic research) nonsense.

*Unless, perhaps, you are sequencing something that recently ATE a human, and you've accidentally sequenced its stomach contents along with the organism itself. Notably, these requires that you pureed the bigfoot first. Seems unlikely.
That is all true (everyone who has EVER studied ANYTHING about DNA sould know), and should conclusively put this bigfoot DNA "article" into the nonsense folder.

I mean, 3% human, 78% this, the rest something else... looks like a comic book I read while in middle school.
Mahaha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 06:07 PM   #23
parnassus
Master Poster
 
parnassus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,566
Ketchum and Paulides sound very convinced that they have bigfoot DNA and that they have done the science correctly and will have a paper that is done right. They talk as if they have bigfoot specimens from all over the country. Paulides seems to be calling the shots as to how much information they are releasing.
Ketchum says they are writing the paper, but are still taking specimens (? ?; last time I heard it was 200 bucks a throw) and expect to have the paper published by the spring.
__________________
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."---Earl Warren

Last edited by parnassus; 1st November 2010 at 06:11 PM.
parnassus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 06:09 PM   #24
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,230
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
The latest DNA claims are being made by ex-cop and author David Paulides ("paw LYE dess"?) and Dr. Melba Ketchum, a Ph.D vet/entrepreneur in Texas, who branched out into the so-called forensic DNA market for identifying your mutt's parents and finding stolen horses, etc etc. Ketchum collaborated on the great Yetsploitation brouhaha over the hair from some TV show, that didn't look human, according to her, but had kind of like human DNA.
Paulides and Ketchum are touting some new findings and promising some peer-reviewed article in the spring of 2011.
From what I can read and surmise, it seems as if they are going to try and make the case that bigfoot is very similar to human and very similar in DNA to human, possibly indistinguishable. I think this is the inevitable direction for bigfooting to go, as it more or less obviates the issue of the missing body, so to speak....we've been finding bigfoot biological specimens all along, the reasoning would be, we just mistook them for human. It's totally win-win for everyone but Meldrum and his ape ideas.

As was mentioned here Paulides and Ketchum were on a radio interview show last night. It's now archived and can be heard at that link. Did you listen yet?

Ketchum says that she is not a PhD. She is fully confident that they have Bigfoot DNA and is finishing the paper now to send off for scientific peer review and publication. She says that if the peer review rejects this that it would be strictly based on anti-Bigfoot bias and not because of analysis or interpretation errors. IOW, she states that the science behind her conclusion is 100% accurate. If she is rejected she will move on to the next publication and so on until it is accepted and published. She says she knows of one editor who would be quite interested already. She said going "international" is possible if it is rejected in what might be mainstream science publications.

Paulides has a habit of not really answering questions directly. He confidently talks about Bigfoot mating with human (Indian) females as if it were a matter of fact. Something about how human males rape thousands of women each year... so why not Bigfoot raping women too.

You also get a bonus as Adrian Erickson (Kentucky Bigfoot Pancake Project) calls in and we hear from him.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Last edited by William Parcher; 1st November 2010 at 06:11 PM.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2010, 10:49 PM   #25
parnassus
Master Poster
 
parnassus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,566
If you listen closely to Paulides and the relationship between the two, I think you can figure out what this scam is gonna be about. I actually think that Ketchum is probably an ignorant tool of Paulides, who has come up with a pretty clever idea of how to game the system.


WP: her bio says:
Quote:
she received her doctorate in Veterinary Medicine.
Somewhat misleading. I have never heard of an MD or a vet refer to their degree as a doctorate.
__________________
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."---Earl Warren
parnassus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 05:20 AM   #26
C_Felix
Graduate Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Right outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,207
Lets assume there is a bigfoot.
We manage to get some blood off of something
(I remember an episode of Monster Quest. A cabin in the deep woods of Alberta was broken into a few times, usually through the front door. The man thought it was a bear. What he did was take a 3x3 foot piece of plywood, and screw in about 100 screws so the head was flush. He placed this in the front of the door with the screws up with the hope that anything that stepped on it (bear or bigfoot) would get hurt and scared off. There was some dried blood type of goo stuff in one of the threads of the screw. Lets assume we get a nice fresh sample off of one of the screws.)

If we get this nice fresh sample and test it, the test would be inconclusive, wouldn't it?
We have nothing to compare it to.
We can't look at it like we would a dog's sample and be able to nail it down as a dog...
Know what I mean?
C_Felix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 06:36 AM   #27
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,179
It wouldn't be inconclusive, it would be from an unclassified primate, or whatever bigfoot is.

I'm waiting for the day when some believer or hoaxer mixes gorilla blood with human blood and submits that sample for testing just to prove all the skeptics wrong.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 2nd November 2010 at 06:42 AM.
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 07:54 AM   #28
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,230
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
I'm waiting for the day when some believer or hoaxer mixes gorilla blood with human blood and submits that sample for testing just to prove all the skeptics wrong.

That won't work because the two different DNAs won't blend. It will only look like contamination.


Originally Posted by parnassus
If you listen closely to Paulides and the relationship between the two, I think you can figure out what this scam is gonna be about. I actually think that Ketchum is probably an ignorant tool of Paulides, who has come up with a pretty clever idea of how to game the system.
You seem to suggest that it will be human DNA that is used in the "trick". But Ketchum already talks about the issue of contamination and how it is a potential problem. If the Bigfoot sample matches human markers then she is forced to deal with her own question of contamination. I don't think she will walk there given what she says. She would know that it is too vulnerable to bad peer review (just simple human contamination) and rejection. I think she is banking on measurable differences.

Paulides admits that the sample origin is bone. Are you suggesting that he has human bone and knows it?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 08:30 AM   #29
Weak Kitten
Graduate Poster
 
Weak Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lost and lonely...will you be my friend?
Posts: 1,910
Quote:
What I can say is that their intention is to temporarily capture a juvenile BF for the purpose of filming the team of credentialed scientists as they take blood, tissue and hair samples for testing; after which the individual will be immediately released, unharmed, back into his own original territory. This will facilitate the scientific identification of the species once and for all. We all wait with 'bated breath.
Um, as far as I'm concerned if they manage to capture anything that would be the end of the question. Why bother releasing it? Keep the blasted thing!

Few believed in the platypus until someone captured a live one (not that I blame them I mean the platypus is pretty crazy). One live specimen would be the holy grail, why would they even conciser releasing it if they caught one?
Weak Kitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 08:49 AM   #30
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,230
Originally Posted by Weak Kitten View Post
Why bother releasing it?

It makes sense when you understand The Mind of Ed Smith and Strategies of Bigfoot Hoaxing. Bigfoot doesn't exist so you cannot possess a live specimen and you certainly can't show it to anyone. You can tell people that you did capture a live one and then you let it go.

The "we will release it" part is a necessary feature of the planned Ed Smith hoax.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 08:49 AM   #31
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,179
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That won't work because the two different DNAs won't blend. It will only look like contamination.
True, but I didn't say it would work. I said some believer or hoaxer will try it.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 08:58 AM   #32
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,179
Quote:
What I can say is that their intention is to temporarily capture a juvenile BF for the purpose of filming the team of credentialed scientists as they take blood, tissue and hair samples for testing; after which the individual will be immediately released, unharmed, back into his own original territory. This will facilitate the scientific identification of the species once and for all. We all wait with 'bated breath.
How does one expect to capture a juvenile bigfoot without mama bigfoot and papa bigfoot inflicting serious bodily damage on the capturers?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 09:00 AM   #33
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,514
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
How does one expect to capture a juvenile bigfoot without mama bigfoot and papa bigfoot inflicting serious bodily damage on the capturers?
Child size pork and beans.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 09:03 AM   #34
The Shrike
Master Poster
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,392
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
How does one expect to capture a juvenile bigfoot without mama bigfoot and papa bigfoot inflicting serious bodily damage on the capturers?
Really not an issue if you don't believe in bigfoot yourself and your goal is simply to play the 'footers with a hoax.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 09:17 AM   #35
Weak Kitten
Graduate Poster
 
Weak Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lost and lonely...will you be my friend?
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
It makes sense when you understand [i]
The "we will release it" part is a necessary feature of the planned Ed Smith hoax.
Let me guess. When they do manage to capture one there will be a mysterious malfunction in their camera equipment. Or for some unknown reason not a single person present will have any skill with a camera or all have bizarrely shaky hands.

The leaders knowing it is a hoax would explain why they never bother to take the normal steps a scientist would take in trying to determine the existence of a new species. Things like figuring out what sort of food sources would be necessary based on similar animals and then examining if the locations this animal has been reported in have that level of food resources. There are already bears in many of those woods. If there are a lot of bears then there is no room, as far as food is concerned, for another large predator/scavenger.
Weak Kitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 09:36 AM   #36
parnassus
Master Poster
 
parnassus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by C_Felix View Post
Lets assume there is a bigfoot.
We manage to get some blood off of something
(I remember an episode of Monster Quest. A cabin in the deep woods of Alberta was broken into a few times, usually through the front door. The man thought it was a bear. What he did was take a 3x3 foot piece of plywood, and screw in about 100 screws so the head was flush. He placed this in the front of the door with the screws up with the hope that anything that stepped on it (bear or bigfoot) would get hurt and scared off. There was some dried blood type of goo stuff in one of the threads of the screw. Lets assume we get a nice fresh sample off of one of the screws.)

If we get this nice fresh sample and test it, the test would be inconclusive, wouldn't it?
We have nothing to compare it to.
We can't look at it like we would a dog's sample and be able to nail it down as a dog...
Know what I mean?
I think you have identified one of the important components (and possibly the inspiration) of the forthcoming scam. Toss in a dash of the OJ Simpson mess, flavor with a naive DNA lab, and stir with an ex-cop of questionable ethics.
__________________
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."---Earl Warren
parnassus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 10:05 AM   #37
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,230
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
I think you have identified one of the important components (and possibly the inspiration) of the forthcoming scam. Toss in a dash of the OJ Simpson mess, flavor with a naive DNA lab, and stir with an ex-cop of questionable ethics.
But you haven't explained what it is that you think Paulides physically handed to Ketchum. She put that into her "machine" and out popped the result: B-I-G-F-O-O-T.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 10:30 AM   #38
SweatyYeti
Illuminator
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
It wouldn't be inconclusive, it would be from an unclassified primate, or whatever bigfoot is.

Bigfoot, if real, would be a Primate. (Obviously)
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 11:14 AM   #39
Mahaha
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 121
This bigfoot stuff has always had me amazed.
Woo-woos can't even resort to the Goddidit argument, so what do they answer when one asks them the thousand reasonable questions that the existence of the bigfoot arises?
Mahaha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2010, 11:21 AM   #40
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,514
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Bigfoot, if real, would be a Primate. (Obviously)
I don't know how you'd know that. What you mean is that you believe it.

You don't know for certain that Patty is a real example and you can't be sure of the tracks. You might believe in those items, but that's far from good enough to proclaim that Bigfoot is obviously a primate.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.