norseman

Ketchum DNA report revisited

110 posts in this topic

Cool, Twist. That would be awesome, if you took that on! And you would have fun. MK is a verrrrry interesting dude, with lots of great information -- not all of which gets as widely disseminated as one might expect (this particular thing being a case in point). 

 

And not to be argumentative, but the tall, hairy hominid I saw looked nothing like Chewbaca.

 

People who have sightings are often deeply affected by them and have sharp memories of what they saw....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive looked, and my link is what Ive come up with..... I have found no such interview that has Lucas proclaiming he played with Bigfeets as a child.

 

 

7 hours ago, LeafTalker said:

It wasn't someone driving past Lucas' car at 55 mph who created the Chewbaca character. It was Lucas who created the Chewbaca character. And Lucas KNOWS what his own dog looks like. He knows his own dog looks like an Alaskan Malamute -- not the Wookie character he 'designed'.

 

I don't understand you, Norseman.

 

But you go. You do what you have to do!

 

Im going to post the paragraph this time.....

 

. The character of Chewbacca was inspired by George Lucas’ big, hairy Alaskan malamute, Indiana. According to Lucas, the dog would always sit in the passenger seat of his car like a copilot, and people would confuse the dog for an actual person. The dog was also the inspiration behind the name for one of Lucas’ other creations, Indiana Jones.

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

"People would confuse the dog for an actual person".

 

People.....not Lucas. Their observations inspired him to create a man/dog character that was also Han Solos co pilot seating in the same spot as Indiana.

 

It could not be plainer.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pup & Chewbacca bear little resemblance and the people observing pup riding in car seat mistook him for a homo sapien. All that seems to do is reinforce the notion of how unreliable eyewitness identification as a form of evidence is fraught with error. Maybe Lucas felt BF riding shotgun with Hans Solo was the better option?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norseman, I know how smart you are, but you must process things very differently from the way I do.

 

From where I sit, it sounds like you think that someone (or 'someones') confusing Lucas' dog for a person would suddenly make Lucas believe that he needed to construct something different from his dog to create the impression that his existing dog -- a Malamute dog, with its long snout, perky ears, and white mask -- was able to create just as it was, with no "modifications" whatsoever.

 

Don't you see that that makes no sense at all?

 

If a Malamute in a car seat looks like a person to some people, then you would just create a character that looked like a Malamute.

 

But that's not what Lucas did. He created a character that did NOT look like a Malamute. 

 

There had to have been something else that inspired Lucas to use a different way to "represent" Chewbacca. And because we know that other people who are NOT Lucas have seen a hairy being in the wild that looks just LIKE Chewbacca, then it seems really, really obvious what that "something else" was: It was a sighting of a Chewbacca-like Bigfoot. Lucas saw a Chewbacca-like figure and then made a costume representing what he saw. Then, other people saw the costume and recognized that it matched what THEY saw in the wild. There could not be a "match" unless both sets of people -- Lucas, and people who report having seen a Chewbacca-like character in the wild -- had seen the same thing.  

 

Like you say, "it could not be plainer."

 

As for helping to find links to interviews, did you see the part where I said it was an interview with MK Davis you needed to be looking for?

 

I hate to (again) state the obvious, but one of the issues here is that Lucas has not been particularly forthcoming about his experiences. He had his experiences a long time ago, when going public with such things could have disastrous consequences for one's reputation. (You know, kind of like now.) And he is reputed to be kind of shy; he's not a big put-yourself-out-there kind of person to begin with.

 

So the information about his experiences comes from third parties who know him, or who, for whatever reason, have access to information about him.

 

So you will not be able to find an interview with Lucas himself in which he talks about his experiences (as far as I know, anyway). You will have to find the information some other way.

 

That is what makes this hard.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in the heck are you still defending the Bigfoot slant with Lucas!?

 

Thats a lot of typing to say "Ive got nothing so I will recant my statement about Lucas playing with Bigfeets as a child!"

 

The article states that his dog sitting LIKE A HUMAN in the passanger seat of his car AND peoples observstions that it Looked LIKE A HUMAN, inspired Lucas to create Chewbacca.....

 

Why doesnt chewbacca more closely resemble a Husky? Why doesnt Jabba the hut more closely resemble a garden slug? Why doesnt a tontar more resemble a unicorn? Why doesnt ewoks more resemble black bear cubs?

 

Its science fiction thats why!

 

At this point there is NO connection between Star Wars and Bigfoot! If someone can provide proof otherwise? Awesome!

 

The problem with our brains not meshing Leaf? Is mine works in black and white....not alot of gray noise in there.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all Lucas did indeed draw Chewbacca's inspiration from his dog Indiana. I know this will be hard for some to understand, but his dog had nothing to do with the way Chewbacca looked. So the Bigfoot connection had nothing to do with Chewbacca. The "Inspiration" from his dog, was to give Han Solo a loyal companion in the way his dog was to him. Had nothing to with Bigfoot or the way the dog looked. Trhe reason the dog looked like a person going down the road is a large 130lb dog sitting in the front seat could be misidentified as a human. You know, just like when a human is misidentified as a Bigfoot, or an entire group of skiers is confused for a Bigfoot family. You should first start by looking at early concept sketches, then look into actually who designed the Chewbacca costume, "hint" it wasn't Lucas.... I guess Mel Brooks made the real vision of Lucas's Chewbacca with John Candy's role in Spaceballs.. Now that was straight up dog. The only connection that Chewbacca has with Bigfoot is the story of them filming in California and the crew telling Peter Mayhew not to wonder around in the woods while in costume so he would't get shot or hurt in case someone thought he was a Bigfoot.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, per Einstein's theory of General Relativity (as currently used in space travel) in that time & space do not travel in straight lines is relevant, what does this do for absolute (black/white) thought patterns? Does it make such "relative"?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beating-a-dead-horse-gif-15.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so we dig up the malamute.  We get hold of Chewbacca.  Take DNA from each.   Analyze it.  Compare them to Ketchum's results.  Case solved. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From my link: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56801/15-chewbacca-facts-honor-peter-mayhews-birthday (my bolding below)

 

"Lucas originally wanted Freeborn’s costume for Chewie to be a combination of a monkey, a dog, and a cat."

 

NOW. Can we let this go, please?

 

 

OK, this is the only thing I have found: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/12/matilda-looks-so-realistic-when.html It is in a Bigfoot Evidence article on MK Davis' enhancements of Matilda. PLEAS NOTE! This isn't a statement by MK Davis, it's a statement by 'Anonymous' in the comments section below the article:

 

"Anonymous Saturday, December 14, 2013 at 7:25:00 AM PST

George lucas was inspired to make wookies in star wars cuz as a kid he states that he would see sasquatches in the woods by his childhood home on several occasions".........

 

Conclusion? Not a credible source and so should never be taken as fact. Now can we let this go?? PLEASE?

 

P.S. My database search showed one Sasquatch sighting back in 2012 ( http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=38309 ) about five miles north of where I'm staying. Keeping my eyes and ears open with a camera, game cam, and NV scope handy  MY THANKS GO OUT TO YOU SSR FOLKS!!

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so puppymonkeykitten.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

Pup & Chewbacca bear little resemblance and the people observing pup riding in car seat mistook him for a homo sapien. All that seems to do is reinforce the notion of how unreliable eyewitness identification as a form of evidence is fraught with error. Maybe Lucas felt BF riding shotgun with Hans Solo was the better option?

Hey, Yuchi! Didn't see your post earlier. Glad you're here.  :)

 

44 minutes ago, JDL said:

Ok, so we dig up the malamute.  We get hold of Chewbacca.  Take DNA from each.   Analyze it.  Compare them to Ketchum's results.  Case solved. 

Brilliant.  :)

 

 

38 minutes ago, hiflier said:

From my link: http://mentalfloss.com/article/56801/15-chewbacca-facts-honor-peter-mayhews-birthday (my bolding below)

 

"Lucas originally wanted Freeborn’s costume for Chewie to be a combination of a monkey, a dog, and a cat."

 

NOW. Can we let this go, please?

 

 

OK, this is the only thing I have found: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/12/matilda-looks-so-realistic-when.html It is in a Bigfoot Evidence article on MK Davis' enhancements of Matilda. PLEAS NOTE! This isn't a statement by MK Davis, it's a statement by 'Anonymous' in the comments section below the article:

 

"Anonymous Saturday, December 14, 2013 at 7:25:00 AM PST

George lucas was inspired to make wookies in star wars cuz as a kid he states that he would see sasquatches in the woods by his childhood home on several occasions".........

 

Conclusion? Not a credible source and so should never be taken as fact. Now can we let this go?? PLEASE?

 

P.S. My database search showed one Sasquatch sighting back in 2012 (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=38309) about five miles north of where I'm staying. Keeping my eyes and ears open with a camera, game cam, and NV scope handy  MY THANKS GO OUT TO YOU SSR FOLKS!!

Hey, hiflier. Twist is working on finding more info about the MK Davis interview, and if I ever get the energy, I might look, too. Everybody gets to do what they want to do. In the meantime, hope you have that sighting! and that you continue to do what YOU want to do! -- because it's good to have fun, and because I think it will be helpful to others down the line, too.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiflier, you know if we really get a wild hair around here............we could always retest and examine one of Ketchum's samples. ;) It could really bring your understanding of her results into full focus.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one way to look at it, SY, and I hope you do gat a wild hair for that reason. As far as my understanding of Ketchum's results go though I'm working off of one premise: The hair samples were not Human but they tested Human. I've been digging into what the protocols are for cleaning samples in that industry. It's fairly statndard and most every lab, be it criminology or zoology, knows th process. What I find interesting regarding Ketchum's results is the highly unlikely outcome thet EVERY sample was contaminated. I mean I can see one or two perhaps but ALL of them?

 

Everyone that came into contact with those samples from the submitters right through the handlers and testers had their DNA tested in order to be able to filter those Human sources out. And yet the results of the mtDNA still came back Human and the nuDNA came back MOSTLY Human. We all know this but again, the gist of this is that the samples, even though coming back Human after all the precautions were taken, the hair morphology itself was NOT Human.

 

That's what everyone needs to keep in mind. Proper procedures were done. The hair samples aren't Human but both DNA sequences (mt/nu) say Human. I'm still on the road heading West so research has been slow sorry to say. It takes a lot of time to not only research but to organize the research as well. Sitting here in Custer State Park at the moment. Here for a couple od days. BFRO shows two sightings here so keeping a sharp watch everywhere I go. Deer around the camp yesterday so food is in abundance with plenty of water and remote areas. Beautiful country.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

24 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I mean I can see one or two perhaps but ALL of them?

 

Yep, she reported 100% of tested samples positive for bigfoot.   109 of 109 or 110 of 110 or ... depends on which source you check, but 100% either way.  

 

The chance that every single sample submitted was bigfoot is vanishingly small.   It's "even more vanishingly small" (if that's a thing?) knowing something about the provenance of some of the samples ... as I do.   I tell you this, not a guess, but certainty: a portion of those samples absolutely were bigfoot and a portion absolutely were NOT.   (And many I'm not sure about of course.)   The absolute certainty that some were not bigfoot but she reported them as bigfoot anyway inescapably means one of two things: laboratory error or fraud in reporting.  It is claimed she followed standard forensic procedures in cleaning samples to remove contaminants.   So ... what's left?   This is not a hard question, it just doesn't fit the story some want to tell.   The only thing it means in the end is that Ketchum's study has no relevance regarding determining whether bigfoot is real or not.   The coolaid chuggers will lock in on her REPORTED (falsely) results as the proof they want to find.  The scoftics will lock in on the falsely reported positives as basis for dismissal they want to find.   Anyone with an open mind and any background in science will rue the loss of the best candidate samples collected to date and look to the future for new samples and legitimate testing.   Sykes got second-string samples, the leftovers Ketchum hadn't managed to destroy.  I'm not a Sykes fan but regardless, I don't think there was anything to find in what he tested.   If you hope for a DNA result, look to the Olympic Project "nest" and soil testing.   Even with scoffing Disotell involved it's the best game in town right now.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites