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 2
keninsc

Dr. Melba Ketchum on the radio this morning.

145 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the answer is no. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the answer is no. Thank you.

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

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it's open. :tu:

But if it opens too early it's as useless as if it opens too late or not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, then good day.

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

Nope. Sakari asked and I answered. That you have him on Ignore isn't my fault.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shakes head, wonders what happened. Check GAS meter, reads zero*

*adds to ignore list*

:blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Sakari asked and I answered. That you have him on Ignore isn't my fault.

cormac

*shakes head, wonders what happened. Check GAS meter, reads zero*

*adds to ignore list*

:blush:

Welcome to the club cormac mac airt

Don't feel bad, that ignore list is mighty big. I am surprised he see's half of the replies on this forum because of it.

He seems to think putting people on his ignore list is a honor or something...... Weird thing is, me and him agree on 99% of what we post.I guess I made the mistake ( to him anyway ) of debating a claim with him...Kind of what this forum is all about " discussion ".

Edited by Sakari
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the club cormac mac airt

Don't feel bad, that ignore list is mighty big. I am surprised he see's half of the replies on this forum because of it.

He seems to think putting people on his ignore list is a honor or something...... Weird thing is, me and him agree on 99% of what we post.I guess I made the mistake ( to him anyway ) of debating a claim with him...Kind of what this forum is all about " discussion ".

I find it simultaneously hilarious as well as sad that he co-opts your question, which has already been answered, and since the answer wasn't addressed specifically to him he "takes his bat and ball and goes home" as the saying goes. Oh well.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I thought that statement was very odd as well. I'm thinking she is suggesting alien DNA. She was involved in the supposed star child DNA testing, if I remember right her results where inconclusive, or unknown.

edit to add;

Here is what I found out about her star child DNA test. I highly recommend this very telling and amusing read.

http://www.thecrypto...ng-results.html

Here are the star child DNA results from a real DNA lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes."[4]

Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring's maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child's mother was a Haplogroup C human female. However, the adult female found with the child belonged to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother.[3]

She's nothing but a crack pot quack looking to make a buck off of the ignorant.

Edited by evancj
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's nothing but a crack pot quack looking to make a buck off of the ignorant.

Amen !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that statement was very odd as well. I'm thinking she is suggesting alien DNA. She was involved in the supposed star child DNA testing, if I remember right her results where inconclusive, or unknown.

edit to add;

Here is what I found out about her star child DNA test. I highly recommend this very telling and amusing read.

http://www.thecrypto...ng-results.html

Here are the star child DNA results from a real DNA lab.

She's nothing but a crack pot quack looking to make a buck off of the ignorant.

Didn't realize she had anything to do with the Starchild Project. For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't realize she had anything to do with the Starchild Project. For some reason that doesn't surprise me.

cormac

Yep, I have the feeling you could send her a piece of plastic and she would find whatever DNA you want her to find in it...as long as you pay for it that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You heard it here first, next she'll claim angel dna.

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.