http://networkedblogs.com/F8tW1
I have been following this story for a couple years now, this is a game changer if her work is published in a scientific journal as it has been rumored.
-
-
-
Dead serious.
-
-
-
-
All jokes aside this is not meant to be funny, I know we are all inclined to make silly comments with the subject Bigfoot comes up, but in the first sentence of the release it says her study is under review from her peers, well "peers" is fellow scientists. This is not amateur hours guys. -
Here is the jist of what I understand so far:
Three different sources of DNA was tested on, meaning they were able to get DNA from three different subjects. 109 samples were tested in all.
Four independent laboratories took part in the study, one government, one university and the other two were private firms. They all came to the same conclusions - a unknown male species 15,000 years ago mated with a modern Homo sapien resulting in a hybrid of what we call Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Almost like a feral human.
Her work is under peer review, thing being that when ones work is under peer review the golden rule is you don't discuss your work in the public eye, something she did yesterday with her press release. She did have her hands forced when another scientist from Russia decided to leak out her results, so she must have felt compelled to give some info on what they have discovered. She also might feel so confident in her work it don't need publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal. We rather that not be the case though, be much easier to sell her work if it was published in a respected journal.
Dr Melba Ketchum, while a competent DNA researcher has attracted some deserved criticism along the way. A lot of it had to do with the field itself, because most of science has chosen to ignore the possibility of the existence of Bigfoot, it has open the doors for some VERY shady characters, such as Matt Moneymaker (Finding Bigfoot show on Animal Planet), Tom Biscardi (you should remember him from the Georgia Bigfoot hoax) and many others such as Todd Standing. They do poison the process, sometimes with just their names alone. For example the Russian scientist who divulged some of Ketchum's work is a prime example of what I am talking about, he's a person that is some reason is connected to her and something most of us frown upon. Even respected Bigfoot researchers such as Dr Jeff Meldrum have grown wary of him.
The other problem and the elephant in the room is she has yet to release any data, until then we must be more patient, the term a lot of us are using is "cautiously optimistic". -
One problem she does face is the scientific community as a whole might not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, even if her data is solid. It's going have to take a brave soul to come out and say they stand by her work, especially when you see venom and hate being thrown at Dr Ketchum. Many "skeptics" or not really act like skeptics but more like cynics. You could have a Bigfoot ***** slap one of them in the face and they will still be in denial of its existence. More people in science need to think outside the box and not have the earth is flat attitude many display.
But I do think there is something there, what I have heard is one possibility is the way she is trying to portray the evidence to what she thinks it represents instead of letting the evidence represent itself, giving pause to those reviewing her work. -
-
-
And I'm not saying your wrong on her playing games or she has motives, I'm just pretty sure you're on the wrong track.
-
BTW, I'd LOVE IT, if they proved bigfoot. I just haven't seen compelling evidence yet. -
-
I've always felt that it was more likely than not that we would eventually find evidence of a Bigfoot like creature. We know that there once existed a bigfoot-like creature from the fossil record (Gigantopithecus). These fossils were found in China and I believe have been dated to as recently as 30,000 years ago. So the question is not whether it existed, but whether it still exists and where does(did) it live. There are stories about Bigfoot-like creatures all over the world. I always found it interesting that among American Indians, Sasquatch was not talked about as a fictional creature, but rather as a real animal like the bear or the horse.
-
This thread cracks me up...not whats discussed in it, but how it reads on the main forum home page. It reads..."DNA confirms the existence of...." then it will have who ever last posted. The last I saw read "DNA confirms the existence of....rafael"....Now, at least for the moment, it will read "DNA confirms the existence of....Fishweiser".....
Ha,Ha!! LOL!!....ahem.....yea.......ok, seriously though, carry on.......Fin D likes this. -
I don't believe you exist. Prove it.
-
What this forum says is always right. Prooving it........NOW (CLICK!!)
-
This site just got Squatchy.
-
God that show is bad....dude laid out doughnuts as bait because "Squatches eat like I do".Sethdaddy8 likes this. -
http://bigfoot.ning.com/profiles/bl...gfoot-by-quantra-separating-fact-from-fiction
No idea what to make of this report. -
This is intriguing and as the "staff" molecular biologist, I will do more research tomorrow and report back :) That said, typically, we see these sort of discoveries well in advance of submission to a major journal and not learn about these things in the fringe press, but I have heard nothing until now.
What is most striking is that the good Doctor's website is offline... http://dnadiagnostics.com -
Her website and email got hacked Xmas Eve.
-
-
As for her site being hacked, I am not buying it. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/12/hacker-alert-dr-melba-ketchums-website.html
This seems like a publicity act to me. From the article "Does our government have anything to do with this? It's a possibility"...Yeah, I am sure that the government has a vested interest in discrediting her..
This is a worthy read from a notable Bigfoot scientist: http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/11/dr-jeff-meldrum-responds-to-melba.html
To quote; Dr. Ketchum provides a much more reasonable interview for a Houston news program. She acknowledges the prematurity of the announcement (I believe she could have stopped short of discussing her unpublished results, however). She does conclude by saying the publication is anticipated in a matter of weeks not months (we've heard that before, but I hope this time it is indeed accurate).
Please don't get me wrong. I truly hope she has the brass ring. I want very much for her study to be legitimate and significant. To that end I want to see her navigate the publication process properly and successfully!
My criticisms stem from the lack of available substantiation of her interpretation of the mtDNA results and the difficulty I have envisioning a scenario that accounts from what is proposed -- a hybridization event 15000 years ago in Eastern Europe that resulted in a population dispersed across North America.
Many people don't seem to understand the role of a null hypothesis (a working hypothesis). The aim is to attempt to falsify or refute it. The hypothesis that whatever is out there is likely a relict ape, or a relict early hominin (e.g. Paranthropus) appears the most reasonable in light of the substantive objective data (personal subjective experiences by some, notwithstanding). Melba even acknowledges this fact in her interview. If evidence, properly interpreted, overwhelmingly negates the null hypothesis, then we set it aside -- simple as that. The notion of "camps" as if they were political parties, has no legitimate place in a scientific endeavor.
I am anxious to see the results -- whatever they are!