The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[southernyahoo]

Killing a squatch is not murder since they have not been proven to be people.

 

 

 

Yet people do know that if they kill anything that turns out to be human, their excuses for doing so will be few, and their conscience unbearable, at least for those who meant to be doing the right thing. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There seem to be some major non-human aspects to what people describe seeing, but at the the same time, although I don't agree with anything in the Ketchum study, I think certain characteristics are being described that only human beings are known to have. It's incredibly odd in my opinion that something like this could even exist, but I don't think anyone's going to get in trouble for bringing a type specimen. Good luck to anyone who plans on hunting one though, because these things seem to be almost non-existent. From what I've seen, they exist mostly in peoples heads. 

[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??

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.

Exactly. All these people who are talking about protecting them by the law are putting the cart before the horse.

Killing a squatch is not murder since they have not been proven to be people.

Yet people do know that if they kill anything that turns out to be human, their excuses for doing so will be few, and their conscience unbearable, at least for those who meant to be doing the right thing.

I saw an 8 foot terrifying hairy monster in the woods so I killed it in self-defense. Tell me I didnt have a good excuse. Go ahead try. Edited May 7, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[southernyahoo]

There's no telling how big it will be, or what it's behavior is. Would you have shot Patty, or Bob H? Was she a terrifying monster?

[Guest]

Yes. Those pendulous breasts were horrifying.

[dmaker]

^^ That's funny! They are pretty disturbing after all.

Edited May 7, 2013 by dmaker

[1980squatch]

Anybody else think it is time for this to be unpinned and allowed to sink??

[dmaker]

^^ Torpedoes away!

[southernyahoo]

Yes. Those pendulous breasts were horrifying.

 

Nice duck and run. The same would happen if you had a specimen.

[Guest]

There would be no duck and run. Just a big fat serving of lead salad.

[southernyahoo]

Would you call the local game warden to verify your uh.... "discovery"?

[Guest]

Nope. Right to the taxidermist !!!    Already have a place picked out in the basement.

[Guest]

<br />Slowstepper and others,<br /><br />You said, “, i assume you are referring to the fragments created by Next gen sequencing? “ Wrong. The 100 bp I mentioned in my original note were RIDGERUNNER’s “deconvolved†sequences from the full published sequence, not MKs raw data(which was not published), as you implied . I maintained that this “deconvolution†is a bad move. Breaking up a sequence LOSES INFORMATION, namely the connectivity. Also, the shorter the sequence length the more likely to match distant(as well as recent) relatives. RIDGERUNNER should explain his logic in doing his “deconvolution.†My searches involved the complete full published sequences, approx.. 2.7, 0.6, and 2.1 MILLION bp respectively , for samples 26, 31, and 140.<br /><br />Second, I am sorry that I used the term “not a true bear†without explanation. It was UNINTENTIONALLY too broad and misleading. The panda IS in the FAMILY Ursidae(bears). However, the panda is the only species in its genius. Hence the term “living fossilâ€, as mentioned by you. Most recent bears are in the genus Ursus(only two exceptions). I did a complete mitochondrial DNA comparison of the panda and the black bear. There was only 84% identity. Compare this to the Homo sapiens vs Pan Troglodytes(Chimpanzee) match of 91% identity. All the other great apes also have more than 86% identity with humans. By this standard (mtDNA), admittedly not the WHOLE picture, we are more closely related to all the apes than the panda is to the black bear. More importantly, why did not the black bear, the only extant species in the area where sample 26 was found, also appear in ridgerunner’s search results?<br />“The chimpanzee is not a true human being.†Same family(Homininae), different genus(Pan vs Homo), just like the panda and the black bear. Everybody OK with that one?<br /><br />Additionally, this is not an election where most votes wins. When you get 10 best search results of 6-3-1 by widely different species, it should give you cause to wonder: “Did I construct this search appropriately?" and “ What do these results really tell me?â€(perhaps not what I was asking). RIDGERUNNER apparently didn’t wonder. His 100 bp input cannot prove anything. For example, on this 100 bp level I found homology between Homo sapiens and FUNGI. It turned out I was looking at a gene SPACER, which carries no useful genetic information, but apparently really works well over billions of years of evolution. Yes, indeed, I do understand how a panda can appear in a reputed North American hominin search output. So can a fungus.<br /><br />As for your question: “ … how on earth did you determine the accuracy of the reassembly?†(A good question to ask the authors of the paper, not me.).<br />ANSWER(mine): “I DIDN’T.†There wasn’t enough information in the paper, and I am not qualified to answer that. From my review please read, “… I am not prepared to comment on the experimental protocol, the integrity of the raw data, or …..†I simply investigated the full sequences and mtDNA mutations AS PUBLISHED. Someone else will have to explore whether these were obtained by acceptable means. Read my review. It is on my facebook page, and I will send anyone who leaves an address the original version and supplementary data which is easier to read.<br /><br />As was pointed out by another blogger here, I do not endorse the “proof†of the existence of Bigfoot, and I had many critical comments(some quite serious) on the MK paper, which by the way she graciously accepted (not necessarily agreed with-no word on that yet). SOME of her conclusions are supportable based on the data AS PRESENTED(not necessarily as obtained). SOME are not. I welcome true, in depth investigations, of any kind; so does she. I also encouraged her to release more raw data(no answer yet).<br /><br />

[Cotter]

^Uff Da!

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/38580-trouble-posting-or-quoting/#entry733022

[Guest]

Cotter,

 

Please translate.  I haven't learned the Sasquatch language.