The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

I am banking on it SouthernYahoo! And hoping enough of same went on to Sykes..we may all be surprised yet, eh? I'm game to still hope. But, oddly not caring so much anymore...ah, first love lost!!

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest njjohn]

Well here's some of what I couldn't release until now. Hope this answers some questions and clears some things up. Obviously it will bring up new questions. Please do not discuss any of the religious aspects of this article in this thread or on the main forums. Stick to "Beings" or "Beliefs" instead of delving into the deeper aspects of it that go against the rules of this forum. Please lets keep the discussion to the science side of it.

http://bigfootforums.blogspot.com/2013/04/did-bigfoot-once-have-wings.html

[Guest Tyler H]

Well here's some of what I couldn't release until now. Hope this answers some questions and clears some things up. Obviously it will bring up new questions. Please do not discuss any of the religious aspects of this article in this thread or on the main forums. Stick to "Beings" or "Beliefs" instead of delving into the deeper aspects of it that go against the rules of this forum. Please lets keep the discussion to the science side of it.

http://bigfootforums...have-wings.html

Wow

Other than the gigantic image size, that is a really interesting read!

[Cotter]

uummmm....

Is this the experience of other habituators?

[southernyahoo]

I think you need to explain where you get your numbers from. Without being able to cite sources, it reads like you are pulling things out of your rear, then asking Ketchum to explain them. This is the first I've heard of reverse evolution being mentioned, and theoreticly ignores the possibility that not all the members of the hypothetical paternal progenitor population were hybrids in their beginning. Recombination of the nuDNA and preservation of the mtDNA which doesn't recombine are known biological functions which are conveniently omitted as potential explanations along with effects of mate selection which we could only speculate would have caused a cross of two different species in the first place.

Never mind on the numbers nijohn, found them.

Edited April 15, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

Well here's some of what I couldn't release until now. Hope this answers some questions and clears some things up. Obviously it will bring up new questions. Please do not discuss any of the religious aspects of this article in this thread or on the main forums. Stick to "Beings" or "Beliefs" instead of delving into the deeper aspects of it that go against the rules of this forum. Please lets keep the discussion to the science side of it.

http://bigfootforums...have-wings.html

The link/image is strange (mine was very small, like 6pt type), but there is a link to a PDF of what looks like a personal Facebook correspondence which I did begin to read, until I got to this line: "there you know more about me than...." and I felt bad. I stopped reading.

If there were a legal case here, or I had a reason to know this I would read it.

But, I don't and I feel bad that the very thing we try to uphold, trust, seems to be abandoned in this release and implicit in the original conversation.

Am I too off here?

I bet I come back to try and decipher what the point of the release was....maybe not... it doesn't feel immediately right...even though much of what I suspect on MKs part does not feel right....but, it doesn't seem we have to go deeper than the claims in the paper, and their rejection when it comes to the science only you want us to discuss?

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

You mean like "trust me my data is beautiful and amazing"

[Guest njjohn]

SY - She states their 3% human. Ignore the mito for a second that is claimed to be 100% human. If two creatures hybridize, they would be 50% maternal line, 50% paternal line in the nuDNA. If the females were human, they would have to start at 50% human. To get down to 3%, would take a long period of time to get erase the original maternal line, while also retaining the purity of maternal line in the mtDNA. I never claimed to be an expert, so I even said, I am openly asking geneticists and biologists to comment. They would be able to explain in more detail how this process could have happened, if it's even possible, and if so, could it have happened in the 15k year timetable.

Regardless of who the conversations came from, it's from Dr. Ketchum's mouth.

[Guest]

^BipealCurious, No , not at all. Those were public statements she made. And I think ones that have not proven true.

But, trust is probably not the right word....doesn't quite embrace what I mean....I mean more...ethics, science, boundaries, civility...blah blah blah...

(thinking of the science guy run off from here allegedly by MK supporters to his boss? was that Theagenes? was it true?) ...and it is an age old conflict.... how to overcome injustice in a right manner...? arrg... I should have kept my mouth shut...

But, here my focus is not BF or MK at all, it's about generally as people, trust that personal correspondence doesn't end up on the internet as an anonymous release.

I can't judge that really (and it isn't anon to those in the know..or maybe somehwere there are other names..).

Sometimes I think it might be a necessary tactic with those already dealing in such a manner, and MK seems to have a reputation for that..or that crowd...or the BF crowd, or the internet crowd generally.... so that what's good for the goose thing can apply, within limits.......maybe it does here...

You guys will tell me. But, if it only goes to her potential bias in assigning her data to a conclusion, heck...there is enough in the work, and her public statements to dispell..

I have no problem with the person who received this saying so, or saying what was said if they stand up to take the consequences for doing so....it seemed anonymous (and technically no proof it's real...but I trust NJJohn!).

.and maybe I was mistaken..but, again with the caveat there might be a good and deep reason to so release, I didn't read it...and the pressures around BFdom and society are unusual...and manipulated by many...so.. I blurted out my gut feeling...old school again I suppose.

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest njjohn]

BFE just posted the story and there's legal threats. This is why people wanted to stay anonymous. They would require legal action to try to learn who my sources were, but in doing so, everything would be opened to the public eye. This is why journalists are used to come public with information as opposed to coming out publicly on their own.

I am fine with people trying to discredit me, it's part of the job. I have proof of what was said and to whom, but I will protect my sources to the last breath. And I realize that people will choose not to believe, that's fine too.

And personal correspondence, when it contradicts what is being put out there as fact, is important. Especially when related to the paper and the background of it.

[Guest]

I am not trying to discredit you! Not at all, but wondering why these, why these obviously personal conversations about personal (I assume) beliefs...or is there more there? .....and I have my answer.... it has been my impression the NDAs and threat of legal action have been rampant, and few willing to engage. This might do it. Or call it, if a bluff. And, whatever counts I will learn...so thank you NJJon for that and you are the one in the know and as you said position to take it to task and perhaps this is the right way.... or is it.. I don't know yet the significance of your view, so I'll defer to you on that.

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

And, this, my friends, is why you get NDA's signed before you discuss the Nephilemur.

I hate to fault someone for having a private discussion regarding their beliefs, but I think she tried connecting too many dots using vague information from ancient accounts of giants. I've always thought there should be ancient accounts of BF somewhere, and I see what she is trying to say, but the information available is far too vague to make that connection.

Being in the position that she is in, she should stick to things that she can prove. Stating things like this affect your credibility, even if her beliefs led her to this conclusion.

I almost feel bad for her. If she hadn't promised so much, I actually would. I think she needs help.

Edited April 15, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher

[Cotter]

Why does BF need protection if they can just become invisible at will?

Or affect peoples' minds at will?

[southernyahoo]

SY - She states their 3% human. Ignore the mito for a second that is claimed to be 100% human. If two creatures hybridize, they would be 50% maternal line, 50% paternal line in the nuDNA. If the females were human, they would have to start at 50% human. To get down to 3%, would take a long period of time to get erase the original maternal line, while also retaining the purity of maternal line in the mtDNA. I never claimed to be an expert, so I even said, I am openly asking geneticists and biologists to comment. They would be able to explain in more detail how this process could have happened, if it's even possible, and if so, could it have happened in the 15k year timetable.

Regardless of who the conversations came from, it's from Dr. Ketchum's mouth.

Referring to the bolded, Yes , and if you were following the maternal line, and if the subsequent paternal fathers were still 100% progenitor you would be down to 3% after just five generations, assuming the human DNA was reduced 50% each time. Hypothetically possible but far out at the same time.

Here's the big problem... If they were so far off to begin with, they couldn't have mated and produced viable offspring in the first place, if it can't now.

I think anyone can see that if you are faced with DNA like this repeatedly , the explanations can get wild. Sometimes Jokingly, sometimes not.

[Guest njjohn]

SY - exactly my point. But I'll let the geneticists and biologists confirm that. Hypothetically possible yes, but it's a stretch. That's why I'm asking. I believe the hypothesis was that the original progenitor died off. And the way the paper explains it, she skips all those steps, just saying it's a human/unknown hybrid. I think most assumed it would still be 50% human. If it had been mentioned earlier that the data showed 3%, it would have called into question the hybridization from the get-go.

Her saying the mito would need to be made more important is also troubling. It's one of the reasons I was saying you should get the full data since she offered it to you.