The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[southernyahoo]

I doubt you would wind up with something that is consistently 3% or 50%. With 16 different mito haplotypes you would have to consider these hybridization events happening at different times with varied amounts of breeding back with the progenitor species. You could probably only give a ball park estimate or range with enough data. This is all assuming there's no rehybridization events which resets the clock and reestablishes the human content to above 50%.

Edited April 15, 2013 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

OK I read the blip in BFE..and two issues here jump forward..one, she says privtately one thing, and then point blank denies it. Given the subject matter and the attempt to publish and get credibility it's probably not so egergious IMO....and might not even point to dishonesty in other matters...b/c of the special circumstance of the state of Bigfoot disbelief... and it's only relvance really to her credibility lies there IMO

The bigger issue, of her beliefs about what we may or may not know of BFs based on ancient references, or BF researchers today, aren't worthy of such a reveal though IMO, b/c she made clear in very early FB posts she was of a fairly fundamental religious view by her citations to religious works and key phrases.

Additionally, the paper itself points to this (albeit it isn't the 6,000 year old world belief) in that there must be some radical new evolutionary dead-end track for some poor species..or angels/aliens... Also, this view has been reported multiple times by those close to her, or who were..Stubstad the first. Lindsay and others...for two years now.

It still doesn't feel like this was posted by you for the "science" we are to limit ourselves to discussing (better to have removed the personal chat) But, rather a way to reveal the untruth she spoke about not believing such (probably irrelevant, and untruth about contract issues/performance not my battle or anyone's but those with a stake, and untruths about Journals and peer-review or actual data...relevant...but not in this release....where is Casey Mullins.....what a mess..) or worse.

But, let's be generous with one another here... there are many beliefs about BFs (and religions!) and very little data. Her data doesn't solve it and those of that persuasion see some merit in it. Those who ascribe to evolution as we understand it don't. I don't think anything more has been illuminated really, to advance science, or review the data, but man, can I just anticipate the BFE comment section ha! So internet fodder, yes it is. Doubt I will open the story...I have to choose how frustrated to be........am I still off on this..is it just an off day for me?

Personally, she sounds off, yeah, she always has, but for me only the ethics/honesty are relevant beyond what is presented by her (well, relevant in the science scheme here, what counts..) ...oh, and that peer-review! But, everyone is off to some degree IMO. I mean, what are you going to say to a Pastor about her believing in biblical accounts? So, maybe it's just trying to make sense of all the weirdness, I should feel off! ...and...for the record...can't wait to see how we handle Sykes's work and news...actually I can...I will...

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest thermalman]

One just has to consider the anonymous sources? Nuff said.

[Guest njjohn]

Well, they're anonymous for good reasons, which I explained. Were Dr. Ketchum's statements not hers?

[Guest]

That's her alright, she talked about some of that stuff in her last interview on C2C.

[Guest Tyler H]

One just has to consider the anonymous sources? Nuff said.

LOL

(I think that will become my only response to all your posts)

Really? you think THAT one sentence is "enough said"???

lolololol omg lol

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?

In my view, apehuman, the key points of this post were that MK knew about the homology issues - the fact that they are nowhere hear 100% human, and the fact that a kid in grade six could understand that an animal with less homology with us than chickens or turtles have, would NOT be able to mate. She HAD to know this from the git-go.

To me, that brings into question how sincere her claims were - how much was DELIBERATE manipulation of the truth.

[Guest]

That's her alright, she talked about some of that stuff in her last interview on C2C.

Yeah, I think I came here after hearing that C2C asking again to be sure...this is what she tends to, and I think she has stepped forward clearly in that arena with the recent report of Peruvian elongated skulls? I think the niche is defined and peer-review no stopping any of that work.

So what now? If she is dishonest in a manner that goes to the claim of evidence (sample tampering, contamination), or the work itself (manufacturing data, ignoring data, holding back data, whatever..is there more data?), or it's peer review..(she claims it passed FAZE/JAMEZ)...then I think even those who like the theories won't like the means....and revealing that dishonesty is in everyone's best interest (especially Science!)

but if she wasn't materially dishonest, ...well then... without that fundamental dishonesty in the work those who adhere to ancient alien or UFO or biblical ideas will like her, until they don't for other reasons perhaps....

Revealing this Angel theory to the guy now spending $7K to have bone material tested won't make a difference, might even entrench their/his support b/c they share a type of hypothesis..of sorts...(and it elicited sympathy from me and I have a critical view of her, and her work really, since the Sierra Kills were not reported. even though I will support the science...well would have!..).

This type of push, from an anon especially, will just entrench people in ways they already felt or thought.. (I saw that recently in some study...hahah, peer-reviewed too!) and generally invite all kinds of smug comments from people who believe bigfoots live in Texas, or Georgia, or even Oregon! To the world BFs aren't real..our arguments sound like one loud crazy chorus!

If the release revealed a real fleecing, or revealed lies about peer-review or Journal origins...maybe then the means are justified....given the legal threats and game of chicken that seems to be going on. And the guy spending $7K will think twice, regardless of shared hypothesis.

I guess wigging out on what MK, or people believe, versus what they produce, or can demonstrate, will keep the community divided.....and the other serious accusations remain only that.

Who is Casey Mullins? That would be a communication I would like leaked! So, NJJohn, no complaints here really, I think writing/journalism is a real challenge and you are educated in your art... I just am in a mood to chew on something today...it's been really windy.

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

Cass Mullins is one of her Facebook friends. Expertise in window installation or something of the such.

[Guest]

So what say Casey of his/her involvement...?

[Guest]

One just has to consider the anonymous sources? Nuff said.

Melba wrote that stuff - how is that anonomous?

[Guest]

I think the anon reference is the release of a private correspondence without the recipient's name ...presumably at arm's length...name withheld...how did NJJon get it?

So, they are trying to slice very thinly this bit of information for our reading..

I think that is what Thermalman is saying..the source in a row of some sort with MK, or with a now opposing view, and the retreat argument "..consider source!" implying that sour grapes are at play.

I call that, it isn't just sour grapes....but, there are motivations that might not be fully altruistic...among, lets see...everybody in the world on every topic...

It didn't feel that dark really, the motivation to share the info (but it could be, who knows? The problem with an anon release is we cannot test motivation, along with all the other issues...like is it really real - yeah, it sounds real, granted) ..

.....my thoughts are more about the whole problem of internet and privacy..and journalism and NJJohn who is launching here...and what tone or route to take...what is fair...just b/c others aren't..not an excuse to be unfair...right??

But, the thing is..that theory is essentially in the paper....and rejected as far as I can tell by those who are current in appropriate disciplines (seems it covered several...or tried)

Ok..enough from me....I haven't a solution for those still wanting something from the study..or wanting it to go away...or to right a wrong..

Edited April 16, 2013 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

In my view, apehuman, the key points of this post were that MK knew about the homology issues - the fact that they are nowhere hear 100% human, and the fact that a kid in grade six could understand that an animal with less homology with us than chickens or turtles have, would NOT be able to mate. She HAD to know this from the git-go.

To me, that brings into question how sincere her claims were - how much was DELIBERATE manipulation of the truth.

I think if you read carefully enough Tyler, you could see that she was caught between following the Data and what it said to her, and presenting a palatable conclusion to science. Who knows, maybe BF refuses to be palatable because it's not.

[Guest]

^^^ I think if you read even MORE carefully you'll see that she was caught between following what she wanted to believe and what the data was telling her. Actually she wasn't caught at all. She just went with Option A.

Option A: Bigfoot and I are so much alike in our beliefs than they are just like me (human).

People commonly project aspects of themselves onto others, including Bigfoot. Instead of "the Bigfoot came into my camp because it wanted food" it turns into "the Bigfoot came into camp because he really liked the color of my tent and my new Chevy Blazer and wanted to check them out."

[Guest]

In my view, apehuman, the key points of this post were that MK knew about the homology issues - the fact that they are nowhere hear 100% human, and the fact that a kid in grade six could understand that an animal with less homology with us than chickens or turtles have, would NOT be able to mate. She HAD to know this from the git-go.

To me, that brings into question how sincere her claims were - how much was DELIBERATE manipulation of the truth.

It seems like a reason to know then, going to the truth of the data...was it deliberately manipulated for profit (would one for ideals..or dollars?)...

Or was it as BipedalCurious says a semi-conscious choice to make data fit dearly held ideas?

Or, was it it is what one might expect from incompetent, but sincere effort?

And apparently this correspondence clarifies that, yeah?

Can you believe I haven't read it yet?

I dunno, I am feeling jaded..the early Stubstad stuff, Smeja's story unreported or addressed the copyright registrations, the movie hopes, the big bucks and hard times, the delays and no shows, the weird year of FB posts and revolving friendships, glamour shots, the failing support, the change of PR people, the funky Journal story, the poorly presented and received work, the funky website, the changing Journal authors, the for profit non profit, the wild call for Presidential attention, the paranormal outlet interviews, the it's going to GenBank, and no it isn't, the oops that citation was misleading not my bad, the blame game, the great team of scientists that never materialized, the distancing by labs, the Trent results, her claim for the Nobel prize for gosh sake's......it 's surreal....when you write it all out...and all of this is public domain .......

I still don't feel like I need to read it, but suppose I still can!

Edited April 16, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

IMO, there really was no study. Even from the start, the entire thing was imaginary. Just look at the number of samples from hoaxers. Perhaps she got a few promising samples, but I would guess they received the same treatment as the other samples.

Edited April 16, 2013 by OntarioSquatch