The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[georgerm]

So where do we go from here to prove BF exists?

[Bonehead74]

[MIB]

That will never be worth it.   Not even one.  Not even with a GUARANTEE it'd solve the mystery rather than just pose more questions.  Never.

 

MIB

[Guest]

so are you a vegan MIB ?

[Guest]

So where do we go from here to prove BF exists?

It can't be done. It's up to them.

[southernyahoo]

So where do we go from here to prove BF exists?

 

 

In terms of DNA proof, there is still a couple options on the table.

 

1. Find consistent mtDNA identity that excludes all currently known extant great apes, including modern humans, yet is most related to all these.

2. Use samples that have promising provenance and morphological outliers that yield modern human mtDNA, then identify the male lineage through the Y chromosome.

 

If neither of those pan out, then we punt, sans shooting one.  Maybe Sykes will make sense of his sample set, but if any are bigfoot, I fear any positive assertion from him will result in an exhausting process of review.

[georgerm]

 

So where do we go from here to prove BF exists?

 

 

In terms of DNA proof, there is still a couple options on the table.

 

1. Find consistent mtDNA identity that excludes all currently known extant great apes, including modern humans, yet is most related to all these.

WITH FRESH SAMPLES OF SKIN OR BLOOD SUCH IS WHAT MK HAD, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO DO?

 

2. Use samples that have promising provenance and morphological outliers that yield modern human mtDNA, then identify the male lineage through the Y chromosome.

LET'S HOPE SYKES IS DOING THIS.  IS HE?

 

If neither of those pan out, then we punt, sans shooting one.  Maybe Sykes will make sense of his sample set, but if any are bigfoot, I fear any positive assertion from him will result in an exhausting process of review.

 

SEEMS LIKE WITH FRESH BF TISSUES OR BLOOD THIS WOULD NOT BE SO DIFFICULT. 

 

[MIB]

so are you a vegan MIB ?

 

No.   I just don't kill people to prove they exist.   How 'bout you?

Edited May 6, 2013 by MIB

[Guest]

So you would rather see the ongoing denial that Sasquatches exist and more of them killed then just having one specimen used as evidence to protect the whole species??

[southernyahoo]

WITH FRESH SAMPLES OF SKIN OR BLOOD SUCH IS WHAT MK HAD, WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO DO?

 

The nuclear DNA can be tougher to get and sequence, perhaps because there are fewer copies available in each cell, or degradation, or the true sequence disrupts the primers.( I think this is Ketchum's theory)

 

 

LET'S HOPE SYKES IS DOING THIS.  IS HE?

 

Sykes is fully equipped where human samples are concerned to ID the Y chromosome.

 

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,flypage/product_id,20/category_id,6/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,67/

 

 

SEEMS LIKE WITH FRESH BF TISSUES OR BLOOD THIS WOULD NOT BE SO DIFFICULT. 

 

I don't expect #1 to pan out with all the human results repeating, so we'll likely have to work the problems with #2.

[MIB]

So you would rather see the ongoing denial that Sasquatches exist and more of them killed then just having one specimen used as evidence to protect the whole species??

 

I said "people" deliberately.   Two thoughts from that.   First, what you advocate is murder.   Regardless of species, they are sapient beings and you're suggesting killing, snuffing out an awareness.   Second, you mistakenly assume that legal protection is practical protection.   Killing wolves is illegal in most states where they exist yet wolves are regularly shot on sight.   The law only binds the law abiding.   It does not bind the fearful or ignorant.   It never ceases to amaze me how tightly people cling to their ignorance.

 

Your idea of protection is the greatest threat of all to their existence.   If you really care, rethink.

 

We have been essentially unable to deliberately hunt them down.  That isn't going to change, protected or otherwise.   However, when you prove they exist, you create a public curiosity that is going to lead more people deeper into back country.   The numbers, not the ability, of the people out there will drive the sasquatch away from food sources and quiet places they could otherwise live their lives.

 

Do you see the irony?  YOU are the problem that needs to be solved.  Your values, your attitudes, are the source of the risk to them.

 

MIB

[MIB]

BC -

 

I came back to edit my post to take a little "sting" out of it, it was harsher than I intended.   Too late. 

 

I am, however, still wondering how you connected the dots between being adamantly no-kill and being vegan.   I'd like an answer to that.

 

MIB

[Guest thermalman]

LOL, good luck with that one MIB!

[Guest]

 

So you would rather see the ongoing denial that Sasquatches exist and more of them killed then just having one specimen used as evidence to protect the whole species??

 

I said "people" deliberately.   Two thoughts from that.   First, what you advocate is murder.   Regardless of species, they are sapient beings and you're suggesting killing, snuffing out an awareness.   Second, you mistakenly assume that legal protection is practical protection.   Killing wolves is illegal in most states where they exist yet wolves are regularly shot on sight.   The law only binds the law abiding.   It does not bind the fearful or ignorant.   It never ceases to amaze me how tightly people cling to their ignorance.

 

Your idea of protection is the greatest threat of all to their existence.   If you really care, rethink.

 

We have been essentially unable to deliberately hunt them down.  That isn't going to change, protected or otherwise.   However, when you prove they exist, you create a public curiosity that is going to lead more people deeper into back country.   The numbers, not the ability, of the people out there will drive the sasquatch away from food sources and quiet places they could otherwise live their lives.

 

Do you see the irony?  YOU are the problem that needs to be solved.  Your values, your attitudes, are the source of the risk to them.

 

MIB

 

 

Oh goody goody. I am the problem. I thought it was supposed to go something like "It's you, not me" but anway....

 

If you are meat you are advocating murder whether or not it is spoken or not. By eating the meat you are supporting the machine. I eat meat. I love me some wings and a nice Pinot Noir. I would also like to see the Sasquatch as a protected species but that isn't going so well now is it?

 

Killing a squatch is not murder since they have not been proven to be people. Sorry but your opinion on the BFF does not change that.  If you think that proving the existance of large 7-10ft ape like people is going to drive more people deeper into the backcountry I think you are sorely mistaken.

 

People are generally terrified of the woods already. Doubt me?  Take a look at the location of most national forest campsites. Yup. Right on the cute little safe edge of the forest.

 

People just don't go into the forest. And the knowledge that huge terrifiying cavemen might live there isn't going to motivate them anymore than they already are.

[dmaker]

So you would rather see the ongoing denial that Sasquatches exist and more of them killed then just having one specimen used as evidence to protect the whole species??

 

Uhm, just exactly how many do you think are being killed now?  Where are the bodies?

Sasquatch have not even been proven to exist yet. What is the point of talking about laws to save a species that most likely is not even real? That sounds, well, quite ridiculous.

Edited May 7, 2013 by dmaker