BigfootWeekend September Expedition

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Is Dr. Bryan Sykes Reviewing Ketchum's Paper?


Last year, news of a Bigfoot DNA study headed by an Oxford University professor, Bryan Sykes, hit the mainstream media and spread like wildfire throughout the world. Many news websites took serious interest Sykes' announcement that he was going to make the case for the existence of Bigfoot -- with the help of genetic testing. While researchers are ridiculed for trying to prove Bigfoot, Syke's credibility and influence in the field of genetics is welcome by both the mainstream science and Bigfoot communities.

On February 15th, shortly after publishing her Bigfoot DNA paper in DeNovo Science Journal, Dr. Melba Ketchum posted a statement that she was handing her paper over for "independent analysis". The announcement on Facebook was a followup to another statement she made earlier about why mainstream science refused to accept her paper:

"I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen." - Dr. Melba Ketchum

What we know about Dr. Ketchum is that she's extremely secretive. She refuses to state who is independently analyzing her data. On Monday, blogger Robert Lindsay, in his rumor mongering style of 'reporting', wrote this:

Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper will be reviewed by outside scientists – possibly Brian Sykes himself. This is some startling news. This review may take up to 6-12 months at the outside. They are going to review it to see if there is something there or not. If there is nothing there, Ketchum is wrong. If they validate Ketchum, so much the better. A source has now informed me that she thinks that the outside scientist who had offered to review Ketchum’s findings is none other than Sykes himself! The source told me it was just an educated guess, but she told me that that her hunches are usually correct. We shall see!

Given the fact that on Coast to Coast AM, Ketchum mentioned an upcoming meeting with Sykes, it's likely that Sykes may be stepping into the ring to give Ketchum a helping hand. So far, we know of only one scientist defending the study, and Ketchum needs all the support she can get.



[via Robert Lindsay]

97 comments:

  1. He'll get nothing and like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He'll pay 30 dolla and like it!

      Delete
    2. Scientific Sasquatch Researcher discount "$29.99 with a 1 cent distribution fee.

      Delete
    3. I'm a Cryptozoologist. Does that mean I get a discount?

      Delete
    4. Holy Bigfoot Bullshit, Batman!

      Delete
    5. Yep, for 30 more dollars, I will tell you what that discount is.

      Delete
    6. I hope he takes a look at the her close association with freaks and nutjobs, over the past few years.

      Robin-Blueberry Bagel
      Linda Sedlak...crazy cat lady
      Arla Williams...you know ALL about her

      There are many more crazies, she has alligned herself with. Can't remember their names, because I don't care enough.

      Delete
    7. ^^Those people are no different than sasfooty and kings canyon.

      Delete
    8. Sasfooty is a genuine fruitloop. Kings canyon and leaf something or other are just having a laugh at the footers expense.

      Delete
    9. ^^As are the people that Ketchum surrounds herself with.

      Delete
    10. Or, those peole are right, have been!

      And you-all are the nut-jobs?

      Delete
    11. Doesnt everyone have a few Sasquatch on their property that only they see and hear? This isnt psychosis but the norm in Bigfootland

      Delete
    12. ^ Serious retardation in evidence.

      Delete
  2. Do us all a favor and release the whole video of Matilda and then everyone can form their own opinion and not think it's a Hollywood special effects rug.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No matter how good it looks, it will always be a rug to some.

      Delete
    2. If its all fake WHY ARE YOU HEAR???? Because you finally think you know something and have to rub your opinion in to the face of others? You have no life and are a LOSER.... Jokes on you...lol

      Delete
    3. agreed, people who don't want to believe in bigfoot have no right whatsoever on this site!

      Delete
    4. oh we want to believe. we're just having a really hard time getting past the intelligent part of our brain.

      Delete
    5. Anon 8:34

      Please stop with your lame copy and paste posts. If you don't have anything original to post here, you have no right to post here at all. The rest of you Footards need to stop thinking this public forum is specifically just for the believing footards. If it was you shallow minded monkey spankers would have talked yourselves into believing in Pixies and fire breathing dragons.... Us skeptards keep you feable minded morons half sane. No need to say Thank You, I consider it work for the greater good of the public.

      Delete
    6. "Us skeptards," isn't that the truth? :)

      Delete
    7. Yep, not much different than a FOOTARD... Except a Footard has no ability to think logically. Skeptards tend to think none mythically and actually have a realistic thought process, rather than believing everthing said.

      Has anyone noticed, not one major news source has picked up on Melba Toast Ketchums claims.... Its only talked about on BF bogs and sites.... Hmmmmm go figure????

      Delete
    8. There are only skeptards and they're jealous as hell that Ketchum found this truth about their monster ape that's why they hate her, half the idiot cynics posting here are other bigfooters now missing a fantasy.

      Delete
    9. "she found the truth" LOL what did she find? She self published a paper that had no scientific methodology or standards Sykes might pay the 30$ to laugh his ass off....more than likely he doesnt even consider her paper legitimate, since it was a self-made 3rd grade science expirement using homeade primers which resulted in the thpical coverups m

      Delete
    10. The facts are all in the study paper, it's proof and soon to become accepted as such, you're only lying through your ass whereas this study was done correctly using many known labs.

      Delete
  3. Another bullseye for Robert "Sniper" Lindsay!

    ReplyDelete
  4. if he confirms Melba's findings I will jump for joy! It will be just like winning the lottery for me! I will be so happy I'll sh*t!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we say the "S" word? Steven's alligator said it.

      Delete
  5. This man would be a fool if he came down to her level. She's, like the trailer trash of the science world. He may take a look at the "paper", but I guarantee, he won't comment on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I guarantee he will comment on it.

      Delete
    2. it could take 6 to 12 months...be patient, he will comment on it because he (nor anyone else) cannot deny these beings any longer, they will take their rightful place upon this earth!

      Delete
    3. Hey, she had enough money to buy a fictitious journal and use a free website builder to publicize her findings. Did you see those super-professional stock photos on that site?

      Delete
    4. Her genome project site is top notch. Great photos of "stick structures" and "braided horse manes". The text that goes with the photos is so..."scientific"

      Delete
    5. ^^Does she have pics of magic monkey?

      Delete
    6. It's strange she didn't call him a year ago.

      Delete
    7. He was probably busy with science stuff or she would've.

      Delete
    8. What's wrong with her stock photos? We've been using stock footage of Bigfoot for forty-five years.

      Delete
    9. ^^Your butt must be awfully sore, from Melba pounding it.

      Delete
  6. I can tell you one thing about so-called "birthing stations". They are a pain in the ass because my dog loves to lick and roll around in the BF afterbirth, it peeves me right off.
    That is one of the main inconveniences I have with the ones in my area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We usually wait until we find three or four of their big nasty placentas and then chuck them at each other's heads.

      Delete
  7. Sykes is as much of a baffoonering hoaxter as Ketchum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "baffoonering": A skeptard struggling to spell "baboon".

      Tard on, baby, tard on.

      Delete
    2. Funny that the bias skeptards aren't complaining about the younger portrait of Sykes always circulating.

      Delete
  8. Let's hope Sykes hair piece doesnt get mixed into all this, he makes Donald Trumps hair look good.
    Squatch Nuts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Trump was the spawn of an orangatan, so someone should be studying his DNA.

      Delete
  9. Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors,
    for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics
    properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means
    more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks
    and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings,
    You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page
    SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then
    it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make
    sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword....wait there's even more Now what if i told you there was a simple Wordpress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That's right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin

    ReplyDelete
  10. It looks like a Squatch patty sittin on his head

    ReplyDelete
  11. What i find interesting is that other skeptic forum the one stankape now likes to hang out in.
    These Skeptics said if Sykes confirms Melba's DNA paper that he will now be classified as freak as well.
    But if he denies her paper he is the hero.

    So basically all these "Skeptics" are nothing but Trolls and StankApe admits he is.

    StankApe
    Errmagherd Bergfert!

    Join Date: Oct 2012
    Posts: 3,886
    I don't have $30 to blow on reading a lousy paper. I will wait for it to leak online or for an actual, you know, DNA scientist to review it .

    ETA: I've also been trolling the Bigfoot Evidence comments section , that's gotta be worth something

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9012276&postcount=3663

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stink monkey doesn't have to wait any longer. It's been posted online, and it's garbage, just like top scientists that have read it, have said.

      Delete
    2. Stank ape big fan of your work keep it up

      Delete
    3. Please don't lump these clowns in with the skeptics. True skeptics have an open mind and would LOVE to see someone like Sykes confirm the data.
      We're just not holding our breath...

      Delete
    4. Wrong. True skeptics know Bigfoot don't exist because well it doesn't!

      Delete
    5. ^^^ OK fair enough, you are a skeptic, and it's good to be skeptical up to a point, if nothing else just in order to make your way through life without being taken and ripped off at every turn. Also, no one wants to be made a fool of and using skepticism as a defensive tool to try to prevent that is good and useful.

      On the flipside of the coin, many so-called believers are skeptical. They reject many reports and other claimed evidence.

      It's not a black and white thing.

      To make a life's philosophy out of skepticism, to make it a profession, and to be a professional doubter--to go through life actively doubting everything which you perceive--is a negative state of mind. A professional doubter is actively negative, is pouring energy into being in and staying in and practicing this negative state.

      That would be a hard way to go through life, being a professional doubter. A human being usually requires some little faith in a few things in order to survive and succeed. If you doubt simply all, you can barely function on a day to day basis.

      These other clowns you refer to are the skeptards, not skeptics.

      Unfortunately the terms get polarized, so anyone who accepts a portion of bigfoot evidence is a "bleever" with no power of rejection, and anyone skeptical of a portion of the evidence might be branded a "skeptard."

      The truth is believers can be skeptical of some things, and skeptics can believe in some things.

      The skeptics who take an atheistic instead of agnostic view of the evidence are in a weaker position than those who tend to believe, because the atheistic skeptic has taken this stance:

      "This doesn't exist no matter what evidence you show me; and furthermore, I am right, and I will always be right, and you will always be wrong."

      Science and the scientific method are by practice and definition agnostic pursuits. Scientists pursue evidence, not pronounce it doesn't exist without looking for it.

      The above paragraph puts the finger on the problem of the atheistic militant skeptic: They have promised to reject all future evidence.

      The position of the atheistic skeptic is also weaker than that of the one who tends to believe, due to the fact that the atheistic skeptic is constantly trying to prove a negative. That's a loser from the get-go, a Sisyphean task.

      Why would anyone want to take that on as a life's hobby or career? That's illogical behavior coming from those who profess logic.

      The atheistic skeptard, being in this weak position from the word Go, it's a wonder they cling to that weakness rather than correct the folly.

      Skepticism, yes; atheistic skeptism, no.

      The atheistic unreasonable irrational stuck-in-the-mud skeptics are what we call the skeptards.

      Delete
    6. This person:

      AnonymousTuesday, February 19, 2013 at 11:16:00 AM PST

      Just made all of my points for me.

      Thank you, and congratulations for walking right in wide-eyed and unsuspecting.

      Delete
    7. 11:16 isn't a skeptic he's a liar and denier.

      Delete
    8. Skeptardical Enquirer, wow! You actually posted something that for the most part wasn't just throwing insults and generally being a troll! I didn't think that you were capable to be honest, unless you are not the same believer that normally trolls here of course. However, let's get something straight yes there is a big difference between sceptics and what you call "skeptards" but also I don't think a single poster who comes on this blog (even Bigfoot is BS has said this herself) who doesn't want Sasquatch to be real. Everyone would like nothing more than for somebody to prove they exist, no matter what you think of PGF that first time you saw it as a kid either (if you're getting on a bit) maybe at the movies, on tv in the 70s or 80s or even saw it for the first time on MonsterQuest or YouTube you went "holy s@@t". Everyone has the same reaction to it, difference is some watch it and go "Wow there is a Bigfoot, it's true" and then others go "Wow, it looks like there could be a Bigfoot but I think we need more evidence cos this is just one bit of footage and as I wasn't there I don't know how genuine it is, it could be a guy in a suit?" No one watches it and says "It's bulls@@t!" straight away, maybe they decide that after looking at Bob H or looking into the personal lives of Patterson and Gimlin or whatever. The thing is there really are no "skeptards" even the trolls here want the monkey man to be real, even Bigfoot is BS does, even Renae does, Merchant, Strufert, Shawn and all the Tazer guys the difference is that like you said the want the real evidence. The "Skeptard" doesn't exist on this site it might exist out there on the streets or homes round the world but not on this blog or why come here? In fact you might even say the "Skeptard" is as elusive as Sasquatch as is hard to find either of em. There might be trolls you think act like "Skeptards" but really they're obviously sceptics just shooting their mouth off like you do sometimes with your rants! You're both essentially trolling being confrontational and obnoxious to get a rise outta other people the main difference is logic isn't on your side.
      It's not up to people to prove a negative it's up to the reasearchers, filmakers and believers to prove a positive as the general consensus and accepted norm is that Bigfoot is a campfire tale. Science backs that up too, the media will back that up as well so it upto you guys to change our minds and provide empirical proof like a body, bones, tissue and decent uncontaminated hair or fluid (yuk!) samples that can be used by reputable geneticists (ie. Dr Sykes not a veterinarian) to shut us up forever! We don't want video footage because even in HD it can be a hoax, we don't want blobsquatches or trail cam photos, Flir thermal footage, tree knocks and strange noises from the woods we want real proof!!! What you have given us so far is millions of.moving and non-moving blobsquatches, millions of hoaxes, god damn habituaters making you all look like you belong in an asylum and a totally flawed DNA study with more red flags than a Civil War museum. Untill you do any of this people will not believe you and just take the p@@s out of you at any given opportunity. As much as I despise Dyer I hope he really has bagged a Bigfoot because I'm sick of all the hoaxes and damn sick of all the crazyness and illogical believer bs! Bigfoot really deserves better than Ketchum, Ed Smith, Dyer and all the other kooks and to be honest you believers deserve better too so stop bitching bout skeptards and go find evidence that's real!!!

      Delete
    9. You're such a troll. I mean c'mon, a rambling long post saying basically nothing. The people you mention don't want it to be real, they know it is but are assigned to either stall discovery or directly prevent it.

      Delete
    10. How is that trolling? You are possibly one of the dumbest people I've ever come across.

      Delete
  12. Sykes is not going to talk to her, or to Robert Lindsay. Sykes will never mention her findings, Sykes will not have one ounce of contact with her or Lindsay. He is doing his own thing. Oxford is the definition of credibility. They won't allow the community of the psychological condition of pathological lying to influence their work. This website celebrates the condition of pathological lying, but believe me, Britain and her cherished institutions does not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, he will not slither around in the gutter, with Ketchum.

      Delete
    2. At least the English accent will provide him a little extra cover for a while.

      That's the problem with being from Texas. You sound like a yokel right off the bat.

      Delete
    3. No, the skeptards who comment here actively practice, support and celebrate "the condition of pathological lying."

      We weren't going to let you get away with that one, Charlie.

      Delete
  13. Read the book "Cons and Carnies" The history of the con game-by I.P. Freely & Jack Ofton

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hey, shouldn't the next hoax be coming along right about now. It's been a few days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure it will, hoaxes are only meant to divert us and stall the truth from coming out sooner.

      Delete
  15. http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/Novel_North_American_Hominins.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The paper is floating around in scientific circles, but nobody is paying for it. I expect sweeping criticism from credible voices in the next few days.

      Delete
    2. The hating skeptards are shocked that Ketchum sounds so normal and nothing like the crazy lady they've painted her to be with their bullshit lies, she actually knows what she's doing unlike them.

      Delete
  16. Apparently, BFE has the peculiar ability to suck all of the oxygen out of the room, when it appears on the computer screens in that room. Thus, reducing the brain function of the computer user, to but a tiny fraction of it's capabilites and inducing a reverse aging process where teenagers and young adults, suddenly behave like idiot like rugrats, who are barely able to operate keyboards. Perhaps Shawn ought to patent this peculiar phenomenon, and market it as a reverse aging process. He could become rich beyond his wildest dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well of course it's Sykes. Melba's claims of a hybrid are one of the things that inspired him to start the Oxford DNA study. Hopefully, he will actually prove that these primates exist (and that they aren't hybrids ;) ).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we know he's smart but whether he's also truly brave enough we don't yet know. If he is brave enough he'll validate her findings because we know that she's educated and qualified enough herself with what she's doing and that the data is good, now it's his turn. As I see it, he'll have to validate because DNA doesn't lie.

      Delete
    2. Nope but contamination and bad science will probably stop it getting validated that plus her conclusions make no sense whatsoever.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. Plus she has an emotional connection to the idea of Sasuqatch being people. Her genome project site has pictures of fallen tree limbs and matted horse hair as Sasquatch evidence, which lowers her scientific credibility greatly.

      Delete
    4. It lowers any credibility as a rational human being never mind a scientist!

      Delete
    5. Jay you're too gullible, go away. Sasquatch is not an ape we'd found them if they were you've been led up the garden path by Krantz your idol Meldrum and cash horny agenda guys like Monkeymaker, now it's time you wrapped your head around that fact and stepped out of gagaland and into reality. The beings look humanlike apart from hair and shape, feet are humanlike they're bipedal and they speak a language. That's not fantasy that's fact it's what we're dealing with here, we're not chasing apes like some thought in the past mostly because of how they - emotionally - wanted it to be thus fitting better into their often religiously set pecking order and food chain visions. We know today they were all wrong to dream that laughable animal dream, these are hominin not beast. The dreaming is over, say goodnight Gracie.

      Delete
    6. You are a very naive person. Hominins are animals. Just because they look human like doesn't mean they are apes, and apes can use sign language. All it would take is for an ape to have a throat which allows the hyoid bone to produce language. If you would do your research, you would learn that just because their feet look superficially human like doesn't mean they're of the genus Homo. Mountain gorillas, which are the most terrestrial known apes, have toes that are more aligned like a human's foot. I would agree with them being a hominin for sure, just before the emergence of Homo. They obviously don't show material culture and such that members of the genus Homo had, and are likely Australopithecines if they are Hominins.

      Delete
  18. I wonder if Sykes is one of the people who did peer review it. After reading it he wanted to test things for himself so he started his project. Would fall right into the timelines perfectly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think it's more than likely that Meldrum had a hand in that as Sykes has already tested unknown Yeti samples from National Geo tv show that Shawn put up a YouTube link to a couple of weeks ago. We know that Meldrum is envolved in the study and if you remember your Lindsay bs Meldrum had to deny some rumours last year about links between the studies. I'm sure he'd heard bout Ketchum before and probably has a copy of her study now if only to read, compare and relate to in his own study. What he thinks of it could be anyone's guess! If he was to peer review it wouldn't that take valuable time away from his own study? Plus to peer review Ketchum's work you wouldn't have to be doing a similar study or anything you'd just have to work in the genetics field and know how to work with animal DNA. We've seen what Meldrum thinks of the study or rather his problems he has with it I'd place a bet that Sykes might have a few problems too?

      Delete
    2. I think the problems are coming from the goofy dna. Where there is double single double strand dna. I finally read the whole report. Dr Ketchum did a lot of work to ensure proper testing. When they found something odd they tried to recreate it with several methods to rule out errors.

      The whole genome portion was done by U of T, so that right there adds a big amount of credibility in my book. Plus with all the effort put in to rule out errors, controls to rule out contamination, etc it looks damn solid. At least to what I compared it to. Other dna reports were done in the same ways.

      So to keep getting the same oddity in the same places in several different samples when you rule out other possible causes means one thing. You have a oddity in the dna not an error. Then when other labs in blind studies get the same thing, it is pretty hard to reject.

      I now know half the people on here claiming to have the read the study are full of crap. I am going to start asking them for specific details from the report to prove they have it.

      Delete
    3. How can she have ruled out contamination when she had samples collected using bacon grease and didn't take DNA samples from all the submiters? How do you account for the difference in findings of the lab that tested Smeja's steak? All you have in that study is Melba's word on this, it's not been peer reviewed and it's been self published Jim. I'll admit I've not bought and will not give Melba any money whatsoever because it's a con.

      Delete
    4. Without reading the paper you miss all the important details she and the others took. The data is there all it needs now is someone to try to disprove it. The work was done by outside labs to verify findings. The processes used are the same as any other dna test I compared to.

      They had their findings tested by labs and processes that would show any contamination. Those results proved there was no contamination. All of the steps are listed in the paper. If you really want to know the truth you will have to get the paper. Or wait until someone proves the paper valid or not.

      The difference in the Smeja sample is easy. What is the remaining 75% of that labs testing? They saw bear dna and human dna and stopped right there. They did not identify three quarters of the dna and they did not do the whole genome testing that was done by Ketchum's study.

      You have to understand that this is not just Ketchum who did this paper. There are several others and several labs that were used to make sure everything was good. It makes no difference what so ever in how the paper was released. There is testable data. And for me after reading it, even the peer review matters little. The process used is valid. So just test the results. That is all that needs to be done.

      Since there is suppose to be proof of peer review, several labs confirmed the findings, and the paper is now out there I don't understand why no one is trying to disprove the data. Unless they can't so they trash the rest in hopes of making the results untrue.

      Delete
  19. Here's a post I found on Cryptomundo...for whatever its worth...this guy seems like legitimate professional in his field, but I suspect he may not realize that Melba is throwing quotes out from him that he never in fact said.

    Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria. From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and nonhuman sequences.

    My opinion of the creature is that it is a hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported. For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected under law.

    Brien, selection of Melba’s lab for your studies is a very good call.

    Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.
    David H. Swenson, Ph.D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Swenson posted that entire statement directly on Dr Ketchum's facebook page. What is she quoting that he did not say?

      Delete
  20. I am regular reader, how are you everybody?

    This piece of writing posted at this web page is truly fastidious.


    Take a look at my page: real estate agents

    ReplyDelete