** UPDATE: Please read the correction supplied by Richard Stubstad on Apr 8, 2012 in the comments below.
A couple of comments from Richard Stubstad indicate Dr Melba Ketchum as the "Official" lead on the Sasquatch DNA research. It is now called the Ketchum Study. Whenever Stubstad refers to the
In a post we did earlier about Dr Meldrum titled, "Meldrum is Interviewed by NPR and is criticized by Wired Magazine" Stubstad responds and breaks the news of the new title of the Sasquatch DNA research:
"I have discussed with Jeff Meldrum some of the DNA findings and conclusions I reached early on in the "Ketchum" study (as it is now called).
I did not hear the interview, but I think he is extremely intrigued about the progress that other scientists have made in the discovery process, now in terms of complete DNA genomic sequencing.
While neither Meldrum nor I am in possession of irrefutable proof that "sasquatch exists" as a new hominid or subspecies of an existing or past hominid, we do have compelling evidence that this is so -- far beyond the footprints, Double-pleaked normal Distribution of footprint lengths and widths, dermal ridges, and questionable video and film footage.
The latter is at least possible to hoax; but not DNA.
Dec 28, 2011 12:38:00 PM
In another comment to the post, "Robert Lindsay Gives Biscardi Benefit of the Doubt." Richard offers Biscardi's early role in the
Your take on Biscardi is probably correct. It's all about publicity (he's from the Las Vegas show scene, you know?).
Java Bob once told me that Biscardi's MO is: "bad publicity is better than no publicity at all".
The interesting thing is: Now and then he is correct; using the "saturation" method, he's bound to be.
We (that is, an ad-hoc group as the proverbial "we") are currently collecting potential sasquatch DNA samples for a so-called "parallel" study by a non-North American research lab. We have about a dozen samples so far, and we are (of course) vetting these samples before accepting them into the study. Guess who provided the first sample -- once again? Biscardi, that's right. Our vetting procedures indicated his sample was likely from a sasquatch (75% certain; we can't do any better than that without first doing DNA sequencing).
For the "Ketchum" study, he also provided the first samples for the currently ongoing project. Out of five samples, only one tested positively certain as being a hominid other than typical modern human or chimp, etc.
Some of the others were not tested; one may also be from a sasquatch; I just don't know, since it was never tested (to my knowledge).
By comparison, Erickson submitted six DNA samples to the "Ketchum" study; I know for a fact that the first two of these were both from "an unknown hominid", as it were. I have also heard the other four were equally viable -- and non-modern human.
The moral of the story is: Some folks do their homework well; some do not. Both manage to contribute to the state-of-the-art come hell or high water.
Dec 28, 2011 12:27:00 PM
You can go to Richard's Website http://www.sciencealivenews.com/