Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Dr. Melba Ketchum on the radio this morning.


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#76    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 04:52 PM

View PostEllJay, on 13 December 2012 - 03:22 PM, said:

Well just have to wait for the paper to be published. It will be scrutinized, and hopefully fairly.
There are many scientists who hint of their discoveries before their study is published, just to bring some attention to it, it is just when the subject is so controversial like this one is, that the attention gets so widespread. She seems confident in her work, we'll just have to wait to see what her critics thinks of it when it's out.

Reputable scientists don't change their story as drastically as Melba Ketchum appears to have done over the last couple of years. But I guess we'll have to wait and see what version of the story, if any, will come out IF the paper is published.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#77    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:01 PM

Ok, someone asked a question that I'm unable to find now......I might have been hallucinating, but the question was to the effect, is DNA enough for proof of existence?

I think that's a valid question when you consider the amount of trickery and hoaxing that's been done in regard to this particular creature. Can the results be faked? I have to say "yes" to that because there's nothing that can't be faked. According to Dr. Ketchum, she's farmed out to other lads some of the samples for blind comparison and what I found interesting was that a number of the secondary labs stopped when they found human DNA because they concluded that they'd been given contaminated samples. Now, Ketchum also said that some of the sample she had varied greatly in the way the samples had been taken, so that can be another potential way to hoax a result.

Now back the original thought I had, "Is DNA enough to prove the existence of a new creature?" On it's own I'd say no without something else to back it up. Footprints, photos and videos that we have now are interesting but a dark, inky blob isn't proof of anything really and even the better ones that show so detail can be faked so easily it isn't funny. The DNA alone, if it turns out to be real is only an indicator, granted a better indicator than the a fore mentioned things, but for proof of existence I'd say we still need more.

Any thoughts?


#78    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:10 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 13 December 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Ok, someone asked a question that I'm unable to find now......I might have been hallucinating, but the question was to the effect, is DNA enough for proof of existence?

I think that's a valid question when you consider the amount of trickery and hoaxing that's been done in regard to this particular creature. Can the results be faked? I have to say "yes" to that because there's nothing that can't be faked. According to Dr. Ketchum, she's farmed out to other lads some of the samples for blind comparison and what I found interesting was that a number of the secondary labs stopped when they found human DNA because they concluded that they'd been given contaminated samples. Now, Ketchum also said that some of the sample she had varied greatly in the way the samples had been taken, so that can be another potential way to hoax a result.

Now back the original thought I had, "Is DNA enough to prove the existence of a new creature?" On it's own I'd say no without something else to back it up. Footprints, photos and videos that we have now are interesting but a dark, inky blob isn't proof of anything really and even the better ones that show so detail can be faked so easily it isn't funny. The DNA alone, if it turns out to be real is only an indicator, granted a better indicator than the a fore mentioned things, but for proof of existence I'd say we still need more.

Any thoughts?

Don't know why you couldn't find the question. Sakari asked it in Post #52. It would be a better indication of BF or whatever being real. But as I mentioned before the DNA cannot change, so amongst other things Melba Ketchum should be held accountable for why she originally claimed it was completely modern human and now is claiming it's a hybrid. And how she determined this after the fact. This speaks volumes for her credibility, or lack thereof, where DNA analysis is concerned.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#79    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 13 December 2012 - 05:12 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 13 December 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Don't know why you couldn't find the question. Sakari asked it in Post #52. It would be a better indication of BF or whatever being real. But as I mentioned before the DNA cannot change, so amongst other things Melba Ketchum should be held accountable for why she originally claimed it was completely modern human and now is claiming it's a hybrid. And how she determined this after the fact. This speaks volumes for her credibility, or lack thereof, where DNA analysis is concerned.

cormac

Oh, that explains it then, I have Sakari on ignore. Had I realize it was him posing the question I probably would have simply forgotten about it.

However, I see no reason for that to be a mystery, once a genome is broken down it takes a while to determine what it's actually telling you. It's not like on "Star Trek" where they have super-duper computers with massive DNA data bases that can make instant comparisons at warp speed. Some poor technician has to go threw and make comparisons, then let the Doctors in Genetics run threw what they came up with and ask for more in this area or whatever. The time lag between saying, "We have this." Then coming back and saying, "Ok, now it looks more like we have something else."

We not trying to determine who da' baby daddy is, we trying to figure out what this is and that take a great deal more, and I'd dare say there will be a couple of mistakes along the way if this is a new species of human or subspecies or whatever it is. However, until we get to see the paper, assuming it gets published in the first place, all we have are some snippets from interviews and the usual bad reporting of facts to go by and that's never a good way to do anything.

Edited by keninsc, 13 December 2012 - 05:22 PM.


#80    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:04 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 13 December 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Oh, that explains it then, I have Sakari on ignore. Had I realize it was him posing the question I probably would have simply forgotten about it.

However, I see no reason for that to be a mystery, once a genome is broken down it takes a while to determine what it's actually telling you. It's not like on "Star Trek" where they have super-duper computers with massive DNA data bases that can make instant comparisons at warp speed. Some poor technician has to go threw and make comparisons, then let the Doctors in Genetics run threw what they came up with and ask for more in this area or whatever. The time lag between saying, "We have this." Then coming back and saying, "Ok, now it looks more like we have something else."

We not trying to determine who da' baby daddy is, we trying to figure out what this is and that take a great deal more, and I'd dare say there will be a couple of mistakes along the way if this is a new species of human or subspecies or whatever it is. However, until we get to see the paper, assuming it gets published in the first place, all we have are some snippets from interviews and the usual bad reporting of facts to go by and that's never a good way to do anything.

I could accept this as a valid excuse if we knew nothing about other human, meaning members of the genus Homo, lines. But we also have the full genome from both Neanderthals and Denisovans to compare to our own in determining what constitutes modern human. And she originally claimed to have ruled out the older lines so this is not some small nor insignificant mistake that's been made. This is a rather glaring error IMO.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#81    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 13 December 2012 - 06:14 PM

You assume she has access to that genome data and even if she did have access then it still is going to take time to do a proper job of it. As far as the reports go, she said that there had been a lot of people claiming she said a lot of things which she said she hadn't.....yadda......yadda, so? Personally, I'm content to wait to see what the actual paper says and how it holds up to the scrutiny of peer review.


#82    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:07 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 13 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

You assume she has access to that genome data and even if she did have access then it still is going to take time to do a proper job of it. As far as the reports go, she said that there had been a lot of people claiming she said a lot of things which she said she hadn't.....yadda......yadda, so? Personally, I'm content to wait to see what the actual paper says and how it holds up to the scrutiny of peer review.

Allegedly, she did:

Quote

The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species....The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual....Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences.

http://www.bigfootbuzz.net/2012/11/24/

But I guess she didn't say that either, right?  BTW "non-human' rules out the entire genus Homo. "Non-archaic hominin" rules out anything older than c.100,000 years BP and "non-ape" rules out anything going back at least 9 million years. One can't rule out all three and still claim something is related to humans, particularly from 15,000 BP.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#83    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 13 December 2012 - 07:42 PM

I don't know what she's said and nether do you, you're quoting another site with an agenda, not her directly so far as I know. Which is why I'm hesitant to jump on the band wagon right now.

Might be a good idea to wait and see what the actual paper says and how it holds up under peer review.............those are people who actually know what they're talking about on the subject.

Quote

One can't rule out all three and still claim something is related to humans, particularly from 15,000 BP.

Now I have to ask, how you know this, are you a geneticist? If so then where is it you work? Or did you simply cut and paste that from another site? I'm not a geneticist so I'll wait and see. not only that but I don't want to be responsible for spreading anything false.

There's a lot at stake for the whole Bigfoot industry of charlatans if they actually discover there's a real Bigfoot.


#84    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:39 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 13 December 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

I don't know what she's said and nether do you, you're quoting another site with an agenda, not her directly so far as I know. Which is why I'm hesitant to jump on the band wagon right now.

Might be a good idea to wait and see what the actual paper says and how it holds up under peer review.............those are people who actually know what they're talking about on the subject.



Now I have to ask, how you know this, are you a geneticist? If so then where is it you work? Or did you simply cut and paste that from another site? I'm not a geneticist so I'll wait and see. not only that but I don't want to be responsible for spreading anything false.

There's a lot at stake for the whole Bigfoot industry of charlatans if they actually discover there's a real Bigfoot.

I don't have to be a geneticist to know the following:

1)  Non-human:  Not a member of the genus Homo, which starts c.2.5 mya.

2)  Non-archaic hominin:  Recent (meaning less than approximately 100,000 years BP) member of the genus Homo.

3)  Non-ape:  Which eliminates any form of tailless primate from at least 9 mya.

If one centers on the use of the word "sequences" then we have the following:

4)  Non-human:  which would make it not a member of Homo sapiens sapiens

5)  Non-archaic hominin:  which invalidates 4) as it includes all lines of the genus Homo, regarless of subspecies.

6)  Non-ape:  which invalidates 4) and 5) since humans are apes.

So what's left?  Absolutely nothing.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#85    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:49 PM

Ok, so the answer is no. Thank you.


#86    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,649 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

  • "I'm an optimistic, don't know." Onslow

Posted 13 December 2012 - 08:55 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 13 December 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

I don't have to be a geneticist to know the following:

1)  Non-human:  Not a member of the genus Homo, which starts c.2.5 mya.

2)  Non-archaic hominin:  Recent (meaning less than approximately 100,000 years BP) member of the genus Homo.

3)  Non-ape:  Which eliminates any form of tailless primate from at least 9 mya.

If one centers on the use of the word "sequences" then we have the following:

4)  Non-human:  which would make it not a member of Homo sapiens sapiens

5)  Non-archaic hominin:  which invalidates 4) as it includes all lines of the genus Homo, regarless of subspecies.

6)  Non-ape:  which invalidates 4) and 5) since humans are apes.

QC: Not to just be a Negative Nelly, but going by what we have been fed all along from bigfootery, and as I posted before, Bigfoot has always asked us to think waaaaaaay outside the laws of nature/science.
And "proving" bf in the lab will be no different, imo.


So what's left?  Absolutely nothing.

QC: Huh uh...bigfoot, silly.

cormac


Edited by QuiteContrary, 13 December 2012 - 08:57 PM.

Keep your eyes wide open and don't run!

P.S. Just to be clear, because sometimes I am not. I do not believe...
in the existence of a large previously unknown undiscovered hairy biped roaming North America.
But I like to hear the accounts, read the books, watch the shows, discuss and argue about the phenomenon.

#87    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:03 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 13 December 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Ok, so the answer is no. Thank you.

So I take it you have an answer for a claim than invalidates itself?

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#88    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:18 PM

What answer is it you'd like to have? One that invalidates itself is a little foolish to answer, isn't it?

My original question was would DNA alone be enough for proof of existence?

Then you took off to where ever it was you were going and never once addressed the question that was posed. However, you didn't seem to want to wait and see what the actual paper says or the peer review but rather you seem hell bent of diving in based on reports from other which might or might not be valid. Now if you'd like to answer the original question then please, feel free to do so. If not then I'll bid you good day.


#89    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,408 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:31 PM

View Postkeninsc, on 13 December 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

What answer is it you'd like to have? One that invalidates itself is a little foolish to answer, isn't it?

My original question was would DNA alone be enough for proof of existence?

Then you took off to where ever it was you were going and never once addressed the question that was posed. However, you didn't seem to want to wait and see what the actual paper says or the peer review but rather you seem hell bent of diving in based on reports from other which might or might not be valid. Now if you'd like to answer the original question then please, feel free to do so. If not then I'll bid you good day.

You are the one who questioned me on it. So apparently you weren't getting the fact it invalidates itself.

So you didn't read Post #53 either? It was a simple "No". So yes, the question was answered.

The rest goes to her credibility. None of which she's shown so far. And yes, I await the paper as well if nothing else to see if or how badly she's mangled the rest of her claim.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#90    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:34 PM

Ok, then good day.

I didn't pose the question until #77, obviously you can answer things before asked. Wow, issues. You have them.

Edited by keninsc, 13 December 2012 - 09:37 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users