Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

5 Responses to “Meldrum’s Morphological and DNA Analysis of Sasquatch Samples”

1. hoodoorocket responds: July 23rd, 2014 at 7:59 am

   Anyone know the source or background of the two photo illustrations depicting hair samples?

2. NMRNG responds: July 23rd, 2014 at 2:36 pm

   Dr. Meldrum,

   Can you share with us your thoughts on Dr. Melba Ketchum’s Sasquatch Genome Project? Or would that fall into the vast gray area where academics and scientist fear to tread out of concern that rendering an opinion with less than 100 percent certainty would subject them to too much scrutiny both within their field and by the public?

   Is it fair to conclude that, by seeking evidence for this particular research project, that you do not find Dr. Ketchum’s results to be conclusive? If so, where do you find problems with her methodology and how do you propose to avoid such problems?

   Thank you.

3. Dufusyte responds: July 24th, 2014 at 7:18 am

   Nowadays it’s not that hard to get ahold of Sasquatch samples and analyze their DNA. Soon every highschooler will be sequencing Bigfoot for their science project.

   The truth cannot be hidden. Bring on the studies. Bring it on.

   Good days for cryptozoology lay straight ahead.

4. hoodoorocket responds: July 24th, 2014 at 9:04 am

   @NMRNG

   I don’t pretend to speak for Dr. Meldrum, but I will offer my own opinions regarding your questions.

   It is not Meldrum’s job to opine about Ketchum. Ketchum’s work is available for evaluation and most people will easily form their own conclusion.

   The same can be said about Meldrum’s relation to Sykes work.

   The fact that Meldrum wishes to conduct this project can be interpreted any number of ways. The most obvious interpretation is that he feels an examination of evidence has yet to be done in the most desirable way to yield the most conclusive results. This does not have to be an indictment against the flaws of earlier projects, just a moving forward in the same vein of inquiry.

   Every one should be aware that chain of command of evidence is going to be the Achilles heel every time this type thing is attempted. While we may eventually get sensational results, they will only invigorate further research, they cannot be held up as submittable evidence (submittable in the sense of a legal argument, I not sure how different the rules for academic evidence are).

   Having said that, if we were to reach the point of recurring results that match, i.e, a growing body of circumstantial evidence for an unknown primate with DNA matches from different collection sites, then you begin to build a pretty good circumstantial case.

5. DWA responds: July 25th, 2014 at 8:49 am

   hoodoorocket: right. Great post.

   NMRMG: Meldrum can’t accept Ketchum’s results as conclusive. Why? He’s a scientist, and knows he can’t. Why? It’s in what he’s asking for: I am looking for reliable samples, by that I mean with a known chain of custody, having been collected in association with a visual encounter or documented footprints. Respond only if you have such a sample in your possession, stored in paper envelope, having been collected under reasonably sterile conditions, i.e. minimal or no direct handling.

   So. Where’d you get those samples you tested, Melba? Provenance is everything.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|