Bigfoot DNA - Page 8

Deacondark · 23rd August 2011, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

We need new blood, someone you wouldn't doubt.

You really need your "Sarcasm Meter" checked.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

If there is a red light thumbs down it means that your hair didn't come from an unknown species of great ape. Accept that and don't play the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy card.

Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.

Deacondark · 23rd August 2011, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.

I'm sure they would have to offer an explanation of why it was rejected.

William Parcher · 23rd August 2011, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

I hadn't thought of the reviewers being interested in doing it, but don't see why if they were, they would hold Ketchums paper until they could do it.

You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence.

William Parcher · 23rd August 2011, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.

Has Ketchum already informed you that your hair sample is from an undocumented species of great ape?

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Has Ketchum already informed you that your hair sample is from an undocumented species of great ape?

I don't think it would be in her paper if she had any other opinion on the sample.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence.

As I understand it, there were multiple labs involved in her study, and they had independently done the sequencing to back check what she had found.

William Parcher · 23rd August 2011, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

I don't think it would be in her paper if she had any other opinion on the sample.

So she hasn't actually confirmed anything with you personally?

Quote:

As I understand it, there were multiple labs involved in her study, and they had independently done the sequencing to back check what she had found.

Then it's ready to be peer reviewed by people that she hasn't chosen. Then replicated by labs that she hasn't chosen.

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 06:03 PM

Quote:

"Yeah, 3 of the skin tags retrieved from the samples did not match or "NO MATCH FOUND" according to computer analysis. Weird, huh? As far as I can tell, I can't match the sequencing codes exactly to any animal/human. This can be due to a number of reasons, however, the skin tags appeared in really good shape. I'm not officially allowed to say that they belong to a squatch but another explanation is highly unprobable given the location, time of year, and the appearance (size, shape, color, thickness, etc.)."

I find that quite suspicious. 3 of the tags? This suggests there are other tags for which there were results. What happened with the other tags?

Not allowed to say it's a squatch? What kind of garbage is that? Of course he can't say it's a squatch!

He can't possibly say it's a squatch, even if it actually is a squatch. He has nothing to reference it with.

Highly unprobable? Given the appearance? What sort of clown technician was this?

I don't think I have ever read a more comical hair analysis.

Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal.

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Update: We attended the Honobia Bigfoot Festival on the weekend of Oct. 3,4,5 where one of the speakers was Dr. Jeff Meldrum. We explained the issue we were having with getting the hair identified and gave him a sample of around a dozen hairs and are standing by for his findings. We will update this page when we have his results.

What were Meldrum's findings?

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

What were Meldrum's findings?

To my knowledge he never did anything with them, he may still have them, we just never heard anything back from him.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I find that quite suspicious. 3 of the tags? This suggests there are other tags for which there were results. What happened with the other tags?

Not allowed to say it's a squatch? What kind of garbage is that? Of course he can't say it's a squatch!

He can't possibly say it's a squatch, even if it actually is a squatch. He has nothing to reference it with.

Highly unprobable? Given the appearance? What sort of clown technician was this?

I don't think I have ever read a more comical hair analysis.

Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal.

Well that tech may well have been right, it wasn't Dr. K.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

So she hasn't actually confirmed anything with you personally?

Then it's ready to be peer reviewed by people that she hasn't chosen. Then replicated by labs that she hasn't chosen.

Yes Dr. K. thinks they are legit and consistent with her many other samples.

William Parcher · 23rd August 2011, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.

A rejection would be addressed to Ketchum, not you. Will she give a you a copy or instead give you her interpretation?

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

"Yeah, 3 of the skin tags retrieved from the samples did not match or "NO MATCH FOUND" according to computer analysis.

What about the rest of the tags? What did they match?

Does "NO MATCH FOUND" actually mean anything? It doesn't, right?

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal.

You are free to name a scientist too. You name them and I'll make a footer out of them.

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

You are free to name a scientist too. You name them and I'll make a footer out of them.

Nope. Not my samples, not my responsibility to get them properly tested.

Of course, given where they were found, I wouldn't see any reason to test them.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Nope. Not my samples, not my responsibility to get them properly tested.

Of course, given where they were found, I wouldn't see any reason to test them.

Darn, I would have thought you would know a good one.

It doesn't matter where they are from, there is no place good enough for bigfoot right? What matters is what this physical evidence belongs to, and why it would be published if it wasn't something of great interest. It must belong to some known right? That would be an easy ID for any specialist in the field of DNA.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

What about the rest of the tags? What did they match?

Does "NO MATCH FOUND" actually mean anything? It doesn't, right?

I think I sent that tech 5 hairs. One was short and very fine, more like an undercoat hair. The tech mentioned one hair that tested 62% positive for fox. That didn't make any real sense, it could still have been anything. The three tags were likely the longer dark wavy hair you can see in the picture. they were producing sequences but not matching anything they were compared to. That left one hair which the tech went ahaead and ran the test on with the same result.

The no match result only means that for some reason nothing was comparable. That is something I'm hoping Dr. K can make sense of.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

A rejection would be addressed to Ketchum, not you. Will she give a you a copy or instead give you her interpretation?

I doubt I would see a copy of that. I would likely take her word for any rejection then wait and see if it is resubmitted to another journal.

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Darn, I would have thought you would know a good one.

It doesn't matter where they are from, there is no place good enough for bigfoot right? What matters is what this physical evidence belongs to, and why it would be published if it wasn't something of great interest. It must belong to some known right? That would be an easy ID for any specialist in the field of DNA.

It would never occur to me to think a bigfoot mauled that tree. Not even when I was a teen and wanted to see a bigfoot. That behavior is quite typical of well known animals.

ID'ing hairs always seems to be problematic anyway.

Most likely you are already pretty sure what the hairs are actually from. Not too many creatures do that to a tree and have hairs that long.

Meldrum's lack of response is also telling, imo. He would certainly be trumpeting any result that could remotely be used to promote bigfoot, such as "unknown". Most likely he knew immediately and didn't bother.

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence.

I can understand that, and I'll be there if they want another sample.

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

The tech mentioned one hair that tested 62% positive for fox. That didn't make any real sense

Yes. I would run away from that tech...

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 08:45 PM

Maybe the squatch cornered and ate a fox at the cedar tree...

southernyahoo · 23rd August 2011, 08:54 PM

[quote]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

It would never occur to me to think a bigfoot mauled that tree. Not even when I was a teen and wanted to see a bigfoot. That behavior is quite typical of well known animals.

Yes , the candidates were bovine, bison, horse, and the long shot bear.

Quote:

ID'ing hairs always seems to be problematic anyway.

With good root tissue tags the success rate is high to ID them.

Quote:

Most likely you are already pretty sure what the hairs are actually from. Not too many creatures do that to a tree and have hairs that long.

Thats why I didn't give up on them.

Quote:

Meldrum's lack of response is also telling, imo. He would certainly be trumpeting any result that could remotely be used to promote bigfoot, such as "unknown". Most likely he knew immediately and didn't bother.

He may have been as skeptical as you are about them, but he's not really a hair expert either. We figured he might persue it since he's trying to collect hair samples as well, and would potentially have the funding to test them out. I think he follows Henners hair criteria, which if these are bigfoot hairs, he doesn't know them all either.

LTC8K6 · 23rd August 2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

With good root tissue tags the success rate is high to ID them.

Apparently not in this case. You seem to be all over the place with these. Why would that be?

Will you ask Meldrum about the samples? Maybe get them back if he isn't going to get them examined?

southernyahoo · 24th August 2011, 04:08 AM

[quote]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Apparently not in this case. You seem to be all over the place with these. Why would that be?

Not sure I follow, if the samples were a known animal we would know by now. All you have to do is recommend another scientist to test them that is above reproach, surely it's not Meldrum.

Quote:

Will you ask Meldrum about the samples? Maybe get them back if he isn't going to get them examined?

What if I want him to have those. I have more

GT/CS · 24th August 2011, 04:20 AM

Does bigfoot have long hair or short hair?
Since Patty obviously had short hair why is everyone so hung up on finding long hair.

LTC8K6 · 24th August 2011, 05:21 AM

[quote=southernyahoo;7505212]

Quote:

Not sure I follow, if the samples were a known animal we would know by now.

And if they were an unknown animal you would know by now. You would have it's DNA profile. Somehow you don't seem to, despite multiple tests.

William Parcher · 24th August 2011, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Yes, the candidates were bovine, bison, horse, and the long shot bear.

Looking at your many hair samples, we see that the hairs are quite wavy or curly. Hardly anything really straight in there.

This is something very different from the typical description (verbal, sketch or film) of Bigfoot hair. Imagine a hominoid creature covered with this kind of hair. It's going to look like a bushy mass with little opportunity to see underlying body details or contours. This is entirely different than what we see in the PGF.

This hair characteristic is so much unlike any primate that it should be the leading descriptor in any eyewitness account. "My God, it looked like a giant human but it had something like an afro or perm from head to toe."

southernyahoo · 24th August 2011, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Does bigfoot have long hair or short hair?
Since Patty obviously had short hair why is everyone so hung up on finding long hair.

You can't dictate what length of hair you would find. The length can help rule out alot of animals. Where are the measurements of pattys hair, or is that subjective opinion?

southernyahoo · 24th August 2011, 10:07 AM

[quote=LTC8K6;7505396]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

And if they were an unknown animal you would know by now. You would have it's DNA profile. Somehow you don't seem to, despite multiple tests.

Yeah, I would know, but having the DNA doesn't mean I could interpret it. Thats why I would rather a scientist publish on it in the peer review process.

River · 24th August 2011, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Looking at your many hair samples, we see that the hairs are quite wavy or curly. Hardly anything really straight in there.

This is something very different from the typical description (verbal, sketch or film) of Bigfoot hair. Imagine a hominoid creature covered with this kind of hair. It's going to look like a bushy mass with little opportunity to see underlying body details or contours. This is entirely different than what we see in the PGF.

This hair characteristic is so much unlike any primate that it should be the leading descriptor in any eyewitness account. "My God, it looked like a giant human but it had something like an afro or perm from head to toe."

Looks a little like human pubes. If I had to guess from the pics I'd say black bear.

southernyahoo · 24th August 2011, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Looking at your many hair samples, we see that the hairs are quite wavy or curly. Hardly anything really straight in there.

This is something very different from the typical description (verbal, sketch or film) of Bigfoot hair. Imagine a hominoid creature covered with this kind of hair. It's going to look like a bushy mass with little opportunity to see underlying body details or contours. This is entirely different than what we see in the PGF.

This hair characteristic is so much unlike any primate that it should be the leading descriptor in any eyewitness account. "My God, it looked like a giant human but it had something like an afro or perm from head to toe."

I agree, the animal would look pretty shaggy if covered head to toe, however the hairs might have come from the arm where it is said to hang a bit longer. Longer arms and occasional quadrupedal locomotion might explain why the hair had picked up the cockel burrs and why the hairs had been pulled out by the root in oder to remove the burrs.

Humans are primates right?

Deacondark · 24th August 2011, 10:37 AM

If you check the BBB reports on Melba Ketchum's business, you will see quite a few complaints against her, several claiming that she returned dna analysis that is impossible, given the samples she was given. I put zero faith in her abilities, to be honest.

LTC8K6 · 24th August 2011, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by River

Looks a little like human pubes. If I had to guess from the pics I'd say black bear.

Yeah, that's what most people would have said upon seeing the tree and the hairs...

That's what a well known footer said too.

Quote:

Dr. Fahrenbach responded with his results first and claimed that without a doubt the sample was Black Bear.

I think Meldrum agrees....

They could have saved a lot of money and effort.

William Parcher · 24th August 2011, 01:23 PM

But a black bear doesn't have curly hair. I can't see how it could be that.

William Parcher · 24th August 2011, 02:05 PM

Many cows have the right stuff.

southernyahoo · 24th August 2011, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Yeah, that's what most people would have said upon seeing the tree and the hairs...

That's what a well known footer said too.

Thats a pretty good observation, though I think the hairs are longer than most, just a guess there.

Quote:

I think Meldrum agrees....

They could have saved a lot of money and effort.

I agree with Parcher, your standard bear hair is shorter and more straight. In morphology the suspect hairs don't have the uniserial ladder medulla either. This is something that I think Henner missed.

southernyahoo · 24th August 2011, 03:19 PM

Here is a comparison of bear, chimp, and the unknown.

23rd August 2011, 05:20 PM	#282
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher If there is a red light thumbs down it means that your hair didn't come from an unknown species of great ape. Accept that and don't play the anti-Bigfoot conspiracy card. Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 05:27 PM	#284
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,508	Originally Posted by southernyahoo I hadn't thought of the reviewers being interested in doing it, but don't see why if they were, they would hold Ketchums paper until they could do it. You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

23rd August 2011, 05:30 PM	#285
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,508	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is. Has Ketchum already informed you that your hair sample is from an undocumented species of great ape?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

23rd August 2011, 05:35 PM	#286
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher Has Ketchum already informed you that your hair sample is from an undocumented species of great ape? I don't think it would be in her paper if she had any other opinion on the sample.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 05:39 PM	#287
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence. As I understand it, there were multiple labs involved in her study, and they had independently done the sequencing to back check what she had found.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 05:12 PM	#281
Deacondark Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 331	Originally Posted by southernyahoo We need new blood, someone you wouldn't doubt. You really need your "Sarcasm Meter" checked.

23rd August 2011, 05:26 PM	#283
Deacondark Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 331	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is. I'm sure they would have to offer an explanation of why it was rejected.

23rd August 2011, 05:49 PM	#288
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,508	Originally Posted by southernyahoo I don't think it would be in her paper if she had any other opinion on the sample. So she hasn't actually confirmed anything with you personally? Quote: As I understand it, there were multiple labs involved in her study, and they had independently done the sequencing to back check what she had found. Then it's ready to be peer reviewed by people that she hasn't chosen. Then replicated by labs that she hasn't chosen.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

23rd August 2011, 06:03 PM	#289
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Quote: "Yeah, 3 of the skin tags retrieved from the samples did not match or "NO MATCH FOUND" according to computer analysis. Weird, huh? As far as I can tell, I can't match the sequencing codes exactly to any animal/human. This can be due to a number of reasons, however, the skin tags appeared in really good shape. I'm not officially allowed to say that they belong to a squatch but another explanation is highly unprobable given the location, time of year, and the appearance (size, shape, color, thickness, etc.)." I find that quite suspicious. 3 of the tags? This suggests there are other tags for which there were results. What happened with the other tags? Not allowed to say it's a squatch? What kind of garbage is that? Of course he can't say it's a squatch! He can't possibly say it's a squatch, even if it actually is a squatch. He has nothing to reference it with. Highly unprobable? Given the appearance? What sort of clown technician was this? I don't think I have ever read a more comical hair analysis. Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal.
	__________________ 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?

23rd August 2011, 06:15 PM	#290
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Quote: Update: We attended the Honobia Bigfoot Festival on the weekend of Oct. 3,4,5 where one of the speakers was Dr. Jeff Meldrum. We explained the issue we were having with getting the hair identified and gave him a sample of around a dozen hairs and are standing by for his findings. We will update this page when we have his results. What were Meldrum's findings?
	__________________ 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?

23rd August 2011, 06:37 PM	#291
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 What were Meldrum's findings? To my knowledge he never did anything with them, he may still have them, we just never heard anything back from him.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 06:40 PM	#292
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 I find that quite suspicious. 3 of the tags? This suggests there are other tags for which there were results. What happened with the other tags? Not allowed to say it's a squatch? What kind of garbage is that? Of course he can't say it's a squatch! He can't possibly say it's a squatch, even if it actually is a squatch. He has nothing to reference it with. Highly unprobable? Given the appearance? What sort of clown technician was this? I don't think I have ever read a more comical hair analysis. Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal. Well that tech may well have been right, it wasn't Dr. K.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 06:41 PM	#293
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher So she hasn't actually confirmed anything with you personally? Then it's ready to be peer reviewed by people that she hasn't chosen. Then replicated by labs that she hasn't chosen. Yes Dr. K. thinks they are legit and consistent with her many other samples.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 06:42 PM	#294
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 8,508	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Well we would want to see the reasons for rejection before we just accept it belongs to something else, and yes I would want to see proof of what that something else is. A rejection would be addressed to Ketchum, not you. Will she give a you a copy or instead give you her interpretation?
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

23rd August 2011, 06:51 PM	#295
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Quote: "Yeah, 3 of the skin tags retrieved from the samples did not match or "NO MATCH FOUND" according to computer analysis. What about the rest of the tags? What did they match? Does "NO MATCH FOUND" actually mean anything? It doesn't, right?
	__________________ 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?

23rd August 2011, 06:54 PM	#296
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Don't take your samples to a footer if you want an honest appraisal. You are free to name a scientist too. You name them and I'll make a footer out of them.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 06:57 PM	#297
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Originally Posted by southernyahoo You are free to name a scientist too. You name them and I'll make a footer out of them. Nope. Not my samples, not my responsibility to get them properly tested. Of course, given where they were found, I wouldn't see any reason to test them.
	__________________ 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?

23rd August 2011, 08:01 PM	#298
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Nope. Not my samples, not my responsibility to get them properly tested. Of course, given where they were found, I wouldn't see any reason to test them. Darn, I would have thought you would know a good one. It doesn't matter where they are from, there is no place good enough for bigfoot right? What matters is what this physical evidence belongs to, and why it would be published if it wasn't something of great interest. It must belong to some known right? That would be an easy ID for any specialist in the field of DNA.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 08:16 PM	#299
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 What about the rest of the tags? What did they match? Does "NO MATCH FOUND" actually mean anything? It doesn't, right? I think I sent that tech 5 hairs. One was short and very fine, more like an undercoat hair. The tech mentioned one hair that tested 62% positive for fox. That didn't make any real sense, it could still have been anything. The three tags were likely the longer dark wavy hair you can see in the picture. they were producing sequences but not matching anything they were compared to. That left one hair which the tech went ahaead and ran the test on with the same result. The no match result only means that for some reason nothing was comparable. That is something I'm hoping Dr. K can make sense of.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 08:26 PM	#300
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher A rejection would be addressed to Ketchum, not you. Will she give a you a copy or instead give you her interpretation? I doubt I would see a copy of that. I would likely take her word for any rejection then wait and see if it is resubmitted to another journal.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 08:38 PM	#301
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Originally Posted by southernyahoo Darn, I would have thought you would know a good one. It doesn't matter where they are from, there is no place good enough for bigfoot right? What matters is what this physical evidence belongs to, and why it would be published if it wasn't something of great interest. It must belong to some known right? That would be an easy ID for any specialist in the field of DNA. It would never occur to me to think a bigfoot mauled that tree. Not even when I was a teen and wanted to see a bigfoot. That behavior is quite typical of well known animals. ID'ing hairs always seems to be problematic anyway. Most likely you are already pretty sure what the hairs are actually from. Not too many creatures do that to a tree and have hairs that long. Meldrum's lack of response is also telling, imo. He would certainly be trumpeting any result that could remotely be used to promote bigfoot, such as "unknown". Most likely he knew immediately and didn't bother.
	__________________ 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?

23rd August 2011, 08:38 PM	#302
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher You are aiming too low. The scientific confirmation of a new species of great ape would be of paramount importance. Those reviewers would crap their pants with glee. But their job is to find legitimate and defensible ways to reject Ketchum's paper. If they cannot find that it is flawed they will want to proceed to having others examine the actual evidence and replicate the DNA analysis. Because of its significance, it would be folly to publish her paper without independant replication using the same evidence. I can understand that, and I'll be there if they want another sample.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 08:41 PM	#303
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Quote: The tech mentioned one hair that tested 62% positive for fox. That didn't make any real sense Yes. I would run away from that tech...
	__________________ 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?

23rd August 2011, 08:45 PM	#304
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Maybe the squatch cornered and ate a fox at the cedar tree...
	__________________ 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?

23rd August 2011, 08:54 PM	#305
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	[quote] Originally Posted by LTC8K6 It would never occur to me to think a bigfoot mauled that tree. Not even when I was a teen and wanted to see a bigfoot. That behavior is quite typical of well known animals. Yes , the candidates were bovine, bison, horse, and the long shot bear. Quote: ID'ing hairs always seems to be problematic anyway. With good root tissue tags the success rate is high to ID them. Quote: Most likely you are already pretty sure what the hairs are actually from. Not too many creatures do that to a tree and have hairs that long. Thats why I didn't give up on them. Quote: Meldrum's lack of response is also telling, imo. He would certainly be trumpeting any result that could remotely be used to promote bigfoot, such as "unknown". Most likely he knew immediately and didn't bother. He may have been as skeptical as you are about them, but he's not really a hair expert either. We figured he might persue it since he's trying to collect hair samples as well, and would potentially have the funding to test them out. I think he follows Henners hair criteria, which if these are bigfoot hairs, he doesn't know them all either.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

23rd August 2011, 10:08 PM	#306
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Quote: With good root tissue tags the success rate is high to ID them. Apparently not in this case. You seem to be all over the place with these. Why would that be? Will you ask Meldrum about the samples? Maybe get them back if he isn't going to get them examined?
	__________________ 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?

24th August 2011, 04:08 AM	#307
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	[quote] Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Apparently not in this case. You seem to be all over the place with these. Why would that be? Not sure I follow, if the samples were a known animal we would know by now. All you have to do is recommend another scientist to test them that is above reproach, surely it's not Meldrum. Quote: Will you ask Meldrum about the samples? Maybe get them back if he isn't going to get them examined? What if I want him to have those. I have more
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

24th August 2011, 04:20 AM	#308
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	Does bigfoot have long hair or short hair? Since Patty obviously had short hair why is everyone so hung up on finding long hair.
GT/CS Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,592	__________________ 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

24th August 2011, 05:21 AM	#309
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	[quote=southernyahoo;7505212] Quote: Not sure I follow, if the samples were a known animal we would know by now. And if they were an unknown animal you would know by now. You would have it's DNA profile. Somehow you don't seem to, despite multiple tests.
	__________________ 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?

24th August 2011, 10:05 AM	#311
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by GT/CS Does bigfoot have long hair or short hair? Since Patty obviously had short hair why is everyone so hung up on finding long hair. You can't dictate what length of hair you would find. The length can help rule out alot of animals. Where are the measurements of pattys hair, or is that subjective opinion?
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

24th August 2011, 10:07 AM	#312
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	[quote=LTC8K6;7505396] Originally Posted by southernyahoo And if they were an unknown animal you would know by now. You would have it's DNA profile. Somehow you don't seem to, despite multiple tests. Yeah, I would know, but having the DNA doesn't mean I could interpret it. Thats why I would rather a scientist publish on it in the peer review process.
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

24th August 2011, 10:15 AM	#313
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,660	Originally Posted by William Parcher Looking at your many hair samples, we see that the hairs are quite wavy or curly. Hardly anything really straight in there. This is something very different from the typical description (verbal, sketch or film) of Bigfoot hair. Imagine a hominoid creature covered with this kind of hair. It's going to look like a bushy mass with little opportunity to see underlying body details or contours. This is entirely different than what we see in the PGF. This hair characteristic is so much unlike any primate that it should be the leading descriptor in any eyewitness account. "My God, it looked like a giant human but it had something like an afro or perm from head to toe." Looks a little like human pubes. If I had to guess from the pics I'd say black bear.
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,660

24th August 2011, 10:15 AM	#314
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96	Originally Posted by William Parcher Looking at your many hair samples, we see that the hairs are quite wavy or curly. Hardly anything really straight in there. This is something very different from the typical description (verbal, sketch or film) of Bigfoot hair. Imagine a hominoid creature covered with this kind of hair. It's going to look like a bushy mass with little opportunity to see underlying body details or contours. This is entirely different than what we see in the PGF. This hair characteristic is so much unlike any primate that it should be the leading descriptor in any eyewitness account. "My God, it looked like a giant human but it had something like an afro or perm from head to toe." I agree, the animal would look pretty shaggy if covered head to toe, however the hairs might have come from the arm where it is said to hang a bit longer. Longer arms and occasional quadrupedal locomotion might explain why the hair had picked up the cockel burrs and why the hairs had been pulled out by the root in oder to remove the burrs. Humans are primates right?
southernyahoo Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 96

24th August 2011, 10:37 AM	#315
Deacondark Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Texas Posts: 331	If you check the BBB reports on Melba Ketchum's business, you will see quite a few complaints against her, several claiming that she returned dna analysis that is impossible, given the samples she was given. I put zero faith in her abilities, to be honest.

24th August 2011, 12:19 PM	#316
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,666	Originally Posted by River Looks a little like human pubes. If I had to guess from the pics I'd say black bear. Yeah, that's what most people would have said upon seeing the tree and the hairs... That's what a well known footer said too. Quote: Dr. Fahrenbach responded with his results first and claimed that without a doubt the sample was Black Bear. I think Meldrum agrees.... They could have saved a lot of money and effort.
	__________________ 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?