The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

BFF members- I am sure that it was mentioned prior, that periodically young children have shown eyeshine in their youth only to "grow out of it". Seems to me that with would it be possible that in times past we or our ansestors had that ability(eyeshine) that enabled us to see nocturnaly? Possibly one of our more educated members can speak to that.

[Guest]

PLEASE, LOOK AT THE PDF IN TYLER'S POST 887!

It shows very elegantly how regions of MK's contig show 100% homology to human or bear when BLASTed individually, but show 96% homology to lemur when BLASTed as an assembly. The lemur results are an ARTIFACT of the BLAST algorithm applied to an artificial assembly of DNA sequences. Like all programs, BLAST can only provide good results if you feed it good data. Tyler previously posted PDFs showing that MK's contigs were stitched together from human, bear and "other" sequences = poor data.

Alternately, you have to believe that now-extinct, giant, prehistoric lemurs were promiscuously fornicating with human females thousand of years ago, and that their Zagnut-craving offspring now inhabit our forests and swamps. Decisions, decisions ... bad data vs naughty lemurs! Eeeeh, I think I'll go with bad data.

Tyler, please thank your PhD friend for the time he spent putting the latest PDF together. It doesn't get clearer than that.

EVERYONE ELSE, GO SEE THE PDF IN POST 887.

Cheers,

Genes

[Guest]

Has anyone else seen the video supposedly of a squatch that was recorded by a researcher, I believe in Canada? It's on youtube and it's something about "researcher goes missing while searching for bigfoot".

At any rate, he has a short clip that shows what he says is a male squatch staring from behind branches into the camera. The eyes seemed odd to me. People also comment a lot on none blinking eyes.

Here's something from Wiki concerning lemurs you might find interesting: "Until shortly after humans arrived on the island around 2,000 years ago, there were lemurs as large as a male gorilla."

Also from Wiki ("Subfossil lemur"): "Despite their size, the giant lemurs shared many features with living lemurs, including rapid development, poor day vision, relatively small brains, and lack of male dominance."

Doesn't sound like Bigfoot's dad contributed much to the super stealthy creature we (allegedly) know today.

[bipedalist]

OK, so that is how they got lemur. Thanks for the reference......

[Guest]

Maybe we aren't close enough to interbreed, but did we ever have the knowledge to create a hybrid in a lab?

To answer or even consider this question, one has to acknowledge that there were advanced societies on this Earth before ours. Even though judging from dogs, cats, livestock....modern man has always been pretty good at "genetics" in our own way

To answer your first question, I am unaware of a human-____ hybrid ever being created, despite efforts by the Soviets to do so in the 1920s. I doubt there will ever be an attempt to do so; the ethical and legal issues alone would probably keep any respectable lab from trying.

As far as advanced civilizations before ours, what are you talking about?

[Guest]

Advanced civilizations before ours?? What would that be exactly?

[Guest BartloJays]

I'm thinking that MK just MAY have something...and she knows she's on to something....however she can't fully comprehend or correctly do what needs to be done. Yet, she so desperately wants to be the Alpha and Omega in this study, as well as reap a fortune, that she's afraid to move.

She needs to bring other experts in, though in order to do so she would have to disclose to them what she has, but doing so places her at risk of being swept aside or backstabbed. Thus all the NDA talk and "Smeja destroy the remaining sample" talk.

To me this reeks of either someone hoaxing (which doesn't make sense for this case), OR someone greedy and is trying to figure a way to grab ALL the money and power! Which I must add I'm not saying "greedy" in a malicious manner and I can't necessarily blame MK or being greedy....It's the American way!

Agree with that assessment 100% on motives, character. Don't agree it's acceptable.

Edited March 3, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest Crowlogic]

The Ketchum report will end up as another PGF. Just enough there with a path convoluted enough to keep the wheels spinning for a very long time. IMO this is 100% par for the BF course.

[Guest thermalman]

How would you know that CL? Have you got inside information? If so, share with us.

@GenesRus "Alternately, you have to believe that now-extinct, giant, prehistoric lemurs were promiscuously fornicating with human females thousand of years ago, and that their Zagnut-craving offspring now inhabit our forests and swamps."

That is the problematic understanding posters are putting up. No interbreeding ever has to take place, when we share some of the same DNA with many other warm-blooded animals. Some of the posters need to research and/or read up on the DNA similarities between humans and other types of animals.

Edited March 3, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Well, actually, no. Cynicism and denial are inherently human ills; and they infect even science, a virtually perfect discipline otherwise.

Science - the discipline - may require proof before paradigms are overturned. But in no way is it required for only one side in a scientific debate to come up with evidence for its contention. The bigfoot skeptics don't have to prove a negative. They have to prove a false positive - that all of this evidence is in fact evidence of something else. They have come nowhere close to beginning to do that. If there is no evidence that that false positive is happening, than the positive is what is probably happening.

(Hoaxes identified mean nothing. Eyewitnesses don't describe what one sees on YouTube.)

When the pros are this far ahead of the cons, this far into the game, the prima facie case has been made for full-time scientific involvement in resolving the issue.

I think there's a pretty good argument that misidentification of known species is behind most, if not all, of the alleged sightings. For instance, Lozier et al's article looking at the correlation between Bigfoot sightings and black bear range and found them almost identical. We also know that several purported bigfoot photos or videos have since been identified as bears with bad cases of mange - Rick Jacobs' photo, for instance.

I'm including a link to Lozier's paper: http://onlinelibrary...2152.x/abstract

The Ketchum report will end up as another PGF. Just enough there with a path convoluted enough to keep the wheels spinning for a very long time. IMO this is 100% par for the BF course.

I doubt it - once Sykes's paper is released, Ketchum's report will be forgotten within a month. I say that regardless of whether Sykes finds evidence of a new species or not.

Edited March 3, 2013 by leisureclass

[Oonjerah]

Why hasn't she released the raw data? Why hasn't she released anything except her own interpretation

about what she thinks the raw data says?

She wants credit for proving Bigfoot without showing the proof of Bigfoot.

Well, it works for Dyer, so why not?

{ Unsubstantiated Claims R Us }

[Guest]

leisureclass, not to be picking on you, but I knew without looking at the name of the poster, that you were new to this. Bear habitat and bigfoot habitat are pretty much the same, because what they EAT is pretty much the same. If an area can support a large bear, it can support a sasquatch. I think this has been discussed a lot elsewhere, you should take a look. "5,000 misidentifications", and those are only the logged reports, with thousands more unreported. These arguments don't fly with me, which is my opinion and you are entitled to yours.

Question: if Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and Apes have 24 pairs, how many do Bigfoot have according to DNA tests?

Edited March 3, 2013 by madison5716

[Guest thermalman]

Good question Maddie.

[Guest]

I think there's a pretty good argument that misidentification of known species is behind most, if not all, of the alleged sightings. For instance, Lozier et al's article looking at the correlation between Bigfoot sightings and black bear range and found them almost identical. We also know that several purported bigfoot photos or videos have since been identified as bears with bad cases of mange - Rick Jacobs' photo, for instance.

I'm including a link to Lozier's paper: http://onlinelibrary...2152.x/abstract

I doubt it - once Sykes's paper is released, Ketchum's report will be forgotten within a month. I say that regardless of whether Sykes finds evidence of a new species or not.

There are way to many people just on this forum alone that had close encounters with these animals, some of the samples taken were witnessed and then the sample taken.

Jacobs is controversial debate, there rebuttal to a bear with mange, for example the leg length is not right for a bear. it will never amount to more than a debate being that it is just a photo.

The report will never be forgotten, Sykes study will be based on it's findings on how it will impact this study.

[Guest thermalman]

Agreed Zig.