Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Socio

Sasquatch DNA Study Announcement

275 posts in this topic

I don't trust scientific studies until they are published.

Unless published in Russia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust scientific studies until they are published.

Keep in mind we don't know where all the samples were taken......what methodology was used. Not only that but if it really is DNA from a Bigfoot then how are you going to know? We don't have anything to compare it to or against. Could the a manpigturduckhen......what ever the heck that thing is that other guy is always blaming sightings on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot: It’s Yogi not Yeti

For three years, there have been scores of sightings of a towering, long-haired beast roaming the Mount Shoria region of southern Russia.

The “bigfoot” has shed its unusual black and grey coarse coat in clumps in various caves which have been collected and claimed to be yeti hair.

The samples have never been analysed by top geneticists — until now.

We gave three hairs from different areas of Shoria to yeti-hunter Prof Bryan Sykes of Oxford’s Wolfson Institute.

His tests reveal one, a long, thick, distinctive hair, comes from a rare type of black bear from North America — Ursus americanus. They can reach 7ft — just like the yeti sighted at Shoria.

The other two hairs turned out to be from a racoon and a horse.

Experts are baffled as the bear is never found native outside the US. The hair is not from an Asiatic black bear, which can be found in Russia.

Prof Sykes — leading a global genetics project to test hair samples from possible bigfoots — revealed: “The hairs did not come from a yeti. The American black bear result was highly unusual. An explanation could be an animal escaped from a circus, zoo or private collection, but it is extraordinary.”

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say "planted evidence"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say "planted evidence"?

Will I loose my decoder ring and DNA kit?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say "planted evidence"?

That is immediately what I thought too. Find hair that "looks good" and then show it around.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if they are purchased thru Dr. Ketchum...after all her fine products have an up to 5 year delay for them to take effect (if at all). They also have an automatically generated biannual personal text press leak/release telling you to be patient and wait for your already confirmed bigfoot DNA test results, and to buy another kit to re-confirm the first test results, so that you can purchase a framed official "I found some bigfoot DNA" certificate that for a small fee will be featured in the DNA diagnostics news letter which you will need to pay for a subscription in order to see.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if they are purchased thru Dr. Ketchum...after all her fine products have an up to 5 year delay for them to take effect (if at all). They also have an automatically generated biannual personal text press leak/release telling you to be patient and wait for your already confirmed bigfoot DNA test results, and to buy another kit to re-confirm the first test results, so that you can purchase a framed official "I found some bigfoot DNA" certificate that for a small fee will be featured in the DNA diagnostics news letter which you will need to pay for a subscription in order to see.

Good thing there's nothing questionable or unethical going on to challenge credibility.

How many supporters does she really have, I wonder?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everything ketchum is involved with, there is no doubt it is all above board, and run with the highest moral ethical and scientific standards... :w00t: :w00t: :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if old Todd "the Man" Standing gave up some of his stuff for testing?

Naaaaaaw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda doubt Todd Standing would have the proper providence attached to his evidence to be accepted into the Sykes study. Ketchum... do I really need to state the obvious? :lol: She was in cahoots with that Justin Smeeja character. What a load. I never bought that clowns tall tale for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they could all get together and smear Bigfoot DNA all over each other.............oh wait.

That's a different kind of party, my bad.

:w00t:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many supporters does she really have, I wonder?

That's the beauty of mathematics, you can take zero and multiply it as many times as you want and always come up with the same number.

Edited by Stardrive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go blinding us all with mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people agree with you, which is one reason that it is profitable to some to keep coming up with new dna analysis and photos and such.

I look at bigfoot like professional wrestling. I know it is fake, but it's still fun to watch the show.

:tu: Right on, man! :tu:

LOL

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that's enough already about bigfoot

there are no such creatures. if there were we would have found them by now. we have been pretty much everywhere that they would supposedly inhabit.

why are people so gullible?

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.

you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

all I can say is, proove that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.

you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

all I can say is, proove that

Hey, EOT - how's it going, man?

I see what you are saying. Both sides of this argument have to do some assuming, due to the lack of objective data. Don't you think though that its a bit of an odd coincidence that its only the Cryptids like Bigfoot and other "unfindables" that tend to break all the rules of nature that allow us to objectively prove their existence? I mean, look at all the other animals we've discovered - mostly by accident just by coming across evidence of their being alive and all animal-y. Then think of all the people who are actively out there searching for Bigfoot and other cryptids and they can't find anything useful? Its just weird.

To me it doesn't make Cryptids impossible (impossible is a pretty tall order, kind of like never or always), but it does make Bigfoot - since we are talking about Bigfoot, pretty damn unlikely. All assumptions aside, it seems more likely that if Bigfoot was indeed a real, living breathing creature that we'd have found SOMETHING that could be used to validate its existence.

I dunno. I guess thats why its a mystery.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.

you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

All animals need food, water, and to mate. All animals compete for the resources in their environment. Unless someone can propose a theory of how Bigfoot doesn't need to follow these rules of nature, we have to presume it does follow them like all other animals on Earth.

all I can say is, proove that

But can you spell it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/12/12/05/

:clap: Excellent link supplied by Rafterman in another thread. :clap:

Give it a listen. It's long, but worth it every minute.

One of many points brought up:

Doesn't Ketchum claim peer reviewed articles under her belt?

Disotell says he found none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.

you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

all I can say is, proove that

I don't get this.

All throughout history new species of all sorts of weird and wonderful types have been found. Biologists didn't need to know anything about gorilla behaviour (and there was a time that gorillas (apart from to the natives who were familiar with them)) held much the same status as bigfoot does now - a mythical monstrous man-like creature that lived in the wilds of the forests somewhere. Yet gorillas have been found, studied, their behaviour studied thoroughly, they have been classified (into species and subspecies) and their place secured in the evolutionary tree, etc.

And gorillas have a behavioural trait that is a common excuse for bigfoot never being found - they are shy of humans (unless provoked) and thus avoid them in general.

That's just one example (I know it's not a perfect analogy, it' just to illustrate a point that there is no inherent reason other than ad-hoc excuses for why mysterious hairy man creatures can't be found and documented). Zoologists are finding and studying weird creatures in deep dark caves in the middle of nowhere, weird fish and marine animals deep down in the ocean depths, ecosystems that feed off the heat from volcanic vents, etc. Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations. And nothing was known of their behaviour before they were discovered. Obviously. You can't study a species behaviour until you've found it and are able to study its habits.

You don't need to know anything about a creature's behaviour to discover it. You just need to look in the right place and take decent pictures of video of it. It's incumbent on those who say he exists to explain why he hasn't been properly studied and documented. And it seems all they have are ad hoc excuses, the same that exist in all sorts of fringe ideas. Bigfoot is shy of humans. Ghosts drain camera batteries. Martian artefacts are being covered up by NASA. etc.

Edited by Archimedes
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really the way of it.

The whole search for Bigfoot has taken on a strange sort of direction now. Much as I hate to agree with Rick Dyer, he did make a valid point in that he said it's become more about social networking. Now, before Gorillas were "officially discovered" there were body parts you could buy in various market places. Seems the natives believed they had magical powers associated with them. However, when it comes to Bigfoot, we don't have that much. Some fuzzy videos and pictures, shoot the best film to date is the PG film and no one can seem decide if it's real or a fake and all this after forty-four years of scrutiny and no bodies, no skeletons, nothing really.

Now, there have been credible people who have come forward, but they have nothing but their story for the most part to offer up. Which can't be considered proof of anything really, it's just an interesting story.

Personally, I think before long someone will find a body or skeleton or shoot one and the mystic' will be all be over. Although, I'm not sure I quite agree with you not needing to know anything about the creature in order to discover it. Granted, if you just happen upon one by happenstance and you shoot it or get DNA from it then, yeah I see your point. The trick is that's what we have to do when hunting for one because we really don't understand anything about them. Yeah, footprints and such but other than that, what else do you have? Truth is not much.

Now, I do know that there are at least a couple guys actively looking for signs.......and I wish more than anything I could join them in their efforts, but for now, I'm pretty much stuck on line same as most anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot genome sequenced? There are skeptics

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers led by Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, New Mexico, claims to have succeeded in sequencing the genome of Bigfoot (Sasquatch). The team published their findings in DeNovo, a journal that Ketchum purchased and renamed because mainstream scientific journals would not accept the study. Scientists have been understandably skeptical. According to critics, a major problem with the research is that it bypassed the normal peer review process. Ketchum claims that established journals wouldn't publish "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" because it is controversial and because the members of her research team are not associated with large universities. Historically, such arguments have been made by those who blame the mainstream scientific community's lack of acceptance on conspiracy, rather than on bad science. Ketchum goes so far as to compare her own experience with that of Galileo.

The science in the paper itself is shaky. People across North America provided researchers, mostly forensic experts, with 111 "Bigfoot DNA samples" consisting of hair, fur, flesh and blood. The team sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes, 10 partial mitochondrial genomes, and 3 whole nuclear genomes. In their paper, they conclude that Sasquatch is a hybrid, created by interbreeding between female Homo sapiens and males of an unidentified hominin species, neither Neanderthal nor Denisovan. Although the isolated mitochondrial DNA did come from humans, these were mostly from Europe or the Middle East. Only a few were Native American. To explain this discrepancy, the team speculated that during the last ice age, some humans walked over the ice through Greenland, despite that the fact that there is no evidence that this ever happened. A much more likely explanation is the samples were contaminated. Electron micrographs of nuclear samples do show an intermingling of patches of double and single-stranded DNA, a sign that some contaminant has mixed with modern human DNA. The researchers could have isolated the non-human DNA and attempted to match it with that of another species. However, they do not report doing that. Ketchum claims that her team did not submit the genetic sequences to GenBank, the open access genetic database, because GenBank only accept sequences from officially recognized species. GenBank has no such restriction, according to Leonid Kruglyak, a geneticist at Princeton University. Nevertheless, the team has created a new species name for Sasquatch, Homo sapiens cognatus, which they are attempting to register with ZooBank, and Ketchum is already fighting to protect Bigfoot's human and constitutional rights.

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bigfoot-genome-sequenced-skeptics.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to thank commenters,

VendicarE "Where's da humans women at? A little wine, a little song, a little bigfoot in her thong... And the rest is history...."

and

jimbo92107 "When will the pseudo-scientific community stop harassing large, hirsute men that like to stroll naked through the woods?"

from the article mentioned above, for clearing it all up! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, EOT - how's it going, man?

I see what you are saying. Both sides of this argument have to do some assuming, due to the lack of objective data. Don't you think though that its a bit of an odd coincidence that its only the Cryptids like Bigfoot and other "unfindables" that tend to break all the rules of nature that allow us to objectively prove their existence? I mean, look at all the other animals we've discovered - mostly by accident just by coming across evidence of their being alive and all animal-y. Then think of all the people who are actively out there searching for Bigfoot and other cryptids and they can't find anything useful? Its just weird.

To me it doesn't make Cryptids impossible (impossible is a pretty tall order, kind of like never or always), but it does make Bigfoot - since we are talking about Bigfoot, pretty damn unlikely. All assumptions aside, it seems more likely that if Bigfoot was indeed a real, living breathing creature that we'd have found SOMETHING that could be used to validate its existence.

I dunno. I guess thats why its a mystery.

things have been found but a lot of people dismiss evidences "out of hand" because they are convinced BF does not exist.

No one has ever seen an electron or neutrino but people believe in them like they are as real as anything.

BF has left tracks all over NA. but every time tracks are displayed, skeptics out-of-hand (and habit) just dismiss them. how so? Don't you need evidence they are fake?

The recordings of these animals screaching. the voice print matches nothing known to man. that gets dismissed? interesting.

I think we mostly disagree on what we call "evidences"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this.

All throughout history new species of all sorts of weird and wonderful types have been found. Biologists didn't need to know anything about gorilla behaviour (and there was a time that gorillas (apart from to the natives who were familiar with them)) held much the same status as bigfoot does now - a mythical monstrous man-like creature that lived in the wilds of the forests somewhere. Yet gorillas have been found, studied, their behaviour studied thoroughly, they have been classified (into species and subspecies) and their place secured in the evolutionary tree, etc.

And gorillas have a behavioural trait that is a common excuse for bigfoot never being found - they are shy of humans (unless provoked) and thus avoid them in general.

That's just one example (I know it's not a perfect analogy, it' just to illustrate a point that there is no inherent reason other than ad-hoc excuses for why mysterious hairy man creatures can't be found and documented). Zoologists are finding and studying weird creatures in deep dark caves in the middle of nowhere, weird fish and marine animals deep down in the ocean depths, ecosystems that feed off the heat from volcanic vents, etc. Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations. And nothing was known of their behaviour before they were discovered. Obviously. You can't study a species behaviour until you've found it and are able to study its habits.

You don't need to know anything about a creature's behaviour to discover it. You just need to look in the right place and take decent pictures of video of it. It's incumbent on those who say he exists to explain why he hasn't been properly studied and documented. And it seems all they have are ad hoc excuses, the same that exist in all sorts of fringe ideas. Bigfoot is shy of humans. Ghosts drain camera batteries. Martian artefacts are being covered up by NASA. etc.

"Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations."

And just how do you know exactly how weird BigFoot really is?

thank you for proving my point :--)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.