The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Well Melba did release some of her "work" - and apparently she is okay with being judged on that. She should have known better - and quite frankly - I don't know why anyone not working with her - has to do anything but discuss what SHE has released. If she didn't want so many questions and so much ridicule - maybe she should have posted all the data to begin with... This is on her - not those who are finding fault with the information SHE released.

But, attacking those who are discussing what they see as flaws - isn't going to help Melba's cause either. She needs to explain the flaws - and release the data. Period. She isn't above the same criticism all scientists must endure. I have seen worse from the "global warming" scientists. Melba has had it easy..

Thermalman said:

I say her science is right, because right now it's on her word and the only science we have.

Her word - really? There is no way I would take anyone at their word about something THIS important. No way. But, I think that's what she expected.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest]

Even if something were 99.9% similar to humans, that doesn't make them human.

No, that would make them NOT Homo Sapien Sapiens, which is the type of "human" type being that WE are.

"Human" is the definition that is open for debate I think. HSS is not open for debate as being fully human, and obviously Sasquatch are NOT HSS. Whether they qualify as "human" is an open question. Correct me if I'm wrong in my definitions. Does that make sense?

I don't think there IS a firm scientifically acceptable definition of "human", is there? If they are intelligent and sentient, and we can prove that some day, there may need to be new definitions created for whatever catagory of being they are.

It does not appear to me, judging from what others say, that Dr. Ketchum defined them accurately, if at all.

Edited March 4, 2013 by madison5716

[Guest thermalman]

Well Melba did release some of her "work" - and apparently she is okay with being judged on that. She should have known better - and quite frankly - I don't know why anyone not working with her - has to do anything but discuss what SHE has released. If she didn't want so many questions and so much ridicule - maybe she should have posted all the data to begin with... This is on her - not those who are finding fault with the information SHE released.

But, attacking those who are discussing what they see as flaws - isn't going to help Melba's cause either. She needs to explain the flaws - and release the data. Period. She isn't above the same criticism all scientists must endure. I have seen worse from the "global warming" scientists. Melba has had it easy..

Thermalman said:

Her word - really? There is no way I would take anyone at their word about something THIS important. No way. But, I think that's what she expected.

I corrected my statement and added data. It is what it is Melissa, unfortunately we have nothing else to compare with....It's a wait and see situation. I, for one, like to deal with facts. And, so far, we can only comment on the facts provided by MK.

Edited March 4, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

Thermalman said:

But what's more frustrating is the numerous factless opinions by many who post their "know all" derivatives based on what little info has been provided by MK thus far.

I just seen this.

I'm sorry, but I must say - you have no more information (or do you) than anyone else posting about this issue - so your opinion's about Melba's work are just as "know all" as anyone elses. While those that "know all" may not be offended by this statement, Thermalman, I am sure you won't care if I say - I am offended for them. Would you mind producing your CV - as ridgerunner provided me with his - so I can see for myself how your academic and professional knowledge stacks up?

Thanks

Oh and the facts MK has provided - do not add up - and that is coming from multiple sources on this board (from those with the credentials) and off this board (with the credentials).. So, I should just listen to you and Melba and forget all the questions out there? I just don't think I would be doing myself any service by not paying attention to every opinion out there - especially those with the credentials.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest DWA]

I only go on evidence.

And evidence tells me how to bet every time a whole bunch of leaks, missteps, whines, catcalls, about-faces and lemurs happen, followed by a request for $30 US.

(Hint: spend the money betting with me.)

[Guest Tyler H]

I've known how strange the nuDNA was reported to be for over a year before this was published, and knew it would not follow evolutionary logic due to the degree in which it doesn't align with human or hominin in some area's. I've had to be agnostic about such information and trust that it would eventually be parsed and better understood beyond what can be said in laymens terms and taken a bit too literally.

"that it would eventually be parsed and better understood beyond what can be said in laymens terms"

SY - that has happened... it has been done. Melba has only releases a tiny bit of her raw data - the choices parts... the "filet" the "tenderloin"... and that choice bit has been "parsed and better understood beyond what can be said in layman's terms" - it's been done by Genes, by RR, by Theagenes, and others. They all say the same thing - they have explained beyond a reasonable doubt, why melba's data clearly shows human with bits of bear in the sequence for sample 26. And they have furhter shown why that mixture pushes the BLAST results to Lemur. (I need to put this somewhere to copy and paste. I must have repeated these points a dozen times by now. Guess that makes me insane! "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.")

^@ Melissa........I believe the science is right, it's all the oppositional twisting, that's being applied by others, that's creating the degrees of uncertainty. in the public eye. A perfect example is the term Angel DNA, which was coined by a media member, and yet the public took it as spoken words from MK.

I will here state unequviocally that Melba used the term 'Angel DN'A. I have proof of it. I will be keeping that proof to myself for the time being.

@ Melissa

I say her science is right, because right now it's on her word and the only science data we have. If full disclosure proves all her supporters and BF believers wrong, then I will be the first to acknowledge my misrepresented stance and eat as much crow as it takes to fill me up, right along side MK.

Whaaaaaat ? No, seriously.... "What?!" "it's the only science data we have"? Are you just refusing to read any posts by anyone other than Melba klingons? You are all clinging on to something and making statements that have NO basis in Fact. It is PATENTLY NOT the only science data we have. We have her data which has produced MORE "science data" in the form of comments by all of the biologists and geneticists on this forum - many of whom are actually open to the existence of this animal -so they are way more open minded than most scientists out there. ANd they all say her data means diddly squat. So my question is "when will you acknowledge the scientific conclusions based on her "science data"? And "when will you stop making fals assertions?"

I corrected my statement and added data. It is what it is Melissa, unfortunately we have nothing else to compare with....It's a wait and see situation. I, for one, like to deal with facts. And, so far, we can only comment on the facts provided by MK.

"we have nothing else to compare with"

Please don't make that assertion anymore - it just is not true. I have posted MUCH other data to compare with.

[southernyahoo]

"that it would eventually be parsed and better understood beyond what can be said in laymens terms"

SY - that has happened... it has been done. Melba has only releases a tiny bit of her raw data - the choices parts... the "filet" the "tenderloin"... and that choice bit has been "parsed and better understood beyond what can be said in layman's terms" - it's been done by Genes, by RR, by Theagenes, and others. They all say the same thing - they have explained beyond a reasonable doubt, why melba's data clearly shows human with bits of bear in the sequence for sample 26. And they have furhter shown why that mixture pushes the BLAST results to Lemur. (I need to put this somewhere to copy and paste. I must have repeated these points a dozen times by now. Guess that makes me insane!

This study is not just about sample 26, and if there is a need to see the rest of the raw data, then it's not time to go insane! Capice!!?

[southernyahoo]

Let's see.. Please tell me if I have this right. Per Melba:

Physical examination of the hair samples - "not human"

Per her paper, they screened the samples and eliminated those that corresponded to human morphology. This is different from the Sykes study, where human morphology is actually sought after. So yes, that would appear to be true.

mDNA - human

Yes, fully human, not a scrap of ape specific sequences.

nuDNA - No idea - possibly lemur.. but definitely not an ape.

The nuDNA has human sequences, unknown sequences, known animal sequences or similar, still no ape. according to Ketchum

She also says, it's not human but closely related to human. (there went the "Constitutional Protections")

The view is that if the mDNA is human and the nuDNA is human / other mix, this could be a hybrid human. If the unknown male progenitor was able to mate with a human, then it is a member of the genus homo and atleast quasi human = BF is human.

But then at the end, she says they are human because of "extra intelligence"... Well - if I have the above correct - that is about as clear as mud..

It's clear they can't exist and be stupid, because we would have proven them long ago otherwise......LOL

For anyone who read Melba's paper - until she started talking about this "lemur" connection --- was there any indication of this in her paper? Or is she talking about the data she has not made available?

I think the Lemur reference is just a measure of divergence from human among primates, which is too far to acknowledge or entertain an interbreeding scenario. The data that will really matter to me at this point is in the amelogenin locus and having to do with recombination in the X chromosome and a fully novel Y chromosome. If there is a consistency across the tested samples there , then there is evidence for what is proposed. If not, then I'll stick a fork in it myself.

[Guest]

Am I interpreting the problem the scientific community has with Ketchum is mostly that she hasn't provided the entire data?

If so, I compare the situation to a professor telling their class that 532 x 2x is ___. The class is in an uproar saying it can't be so, but does that make sense as the professor hasn't given the full equation? Shouldn't they wait for the full equation before jumping all over the professor.

Melba hasn't released all the information, which opens her up to criticism, but it's premature to call her equation junk or wrong until we have all of it. Now if we never get all of it she should be called for her bluffing.

My take is she MAY have something, but she's trying to figure how best to capitalize with it. So I won't call what she suggests garbage yet because I hate being wrong simply because I jump the gun. I'll wait...sor a lil while and let her play her hand.

So basically those of a science background are doing what the kids on a playground do when another kid claims he has a PS4. "You're lying, we don't believe you! Let us see!" Now sometime the kid with the claim is called, but other times he does indeed back his claim up.

[Guest]

Southernyahoo said:

It's clear they can't exist and be stupid, because we would have proven them long ago otherwise......LOL

I will give you that - but "intelligence" in and of itself will not put Bigfoot in the human category like you and me for "Constitutional Protection". It will take far more than that.

If intelligence is the ultimate deciding factor -- I know some people in my "real world" I think can safely be kicked out of the human race. LOL.

I think the Lemur reference is just a measure of divergence from human among primates, which is too far to acknowledge or entertain an interbreeding scenario.

So are you saying Melba doesn't really think that - or you don't?

Delta Zu said:

So basically those of a science background are doing what the kids on a playground do when another kid claims he has a PS4. "You're lying, we don't believe you! Let us see!" Now sometime the kid with the claim is called, but other times he does indeed back his claim up.

Then maybe she shouldn't have released the paper in the manner she did - and then demanded money for the "beautiful science".. People will always want what they pay for. Near as I can tell - the requests for the Raw Data do not sound like an out of the ordinary request. As one person put it "We paid for the science, and the science wasn't even in the paper".. He was referring to the raw data. I gotta tell you - even for 30 bucks that to me sounds like a reasonable request.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Melissa

[Martin]

@ Melissa

I say her science is right, because right now it's on her word and the only science data we have. If full disclosure proves all her supporters and BF believers wrong, then I will be the first to acknowledge my misrepresented stance and eat as much crow as it takes to fill me up, right along side MK.

Only in bigfootery is a claim "proven" until someone produces evidence that it's not.

It actually works just the opposite in the real world......

[Arrowhead]

I’ve been trying to follow all of this and am a little confused so please "bear" with me. With so much controversy surrounding the Sierra kills sample, why is it even included in the MK study? Is that the best out of 100+ samples they have? MK maintains the samples used for the study were obtained with utmost care and documented with a chain of custody etc. I don’t have all the details, but I do get the impression that the Sierra kills sample was not obtained or handled with the high level of care that would be required for this study (no disrespect to the submitters) Or is that why this subject keeps coming up?

On another note (in the other major thread here that shall not be named), it was brought up that in samples that are frozen the tissue is damaged so DNA testing is not either possible or inconclusive (not sure what the problem was). But the Sierra kills frozen popsicle steak is sent to MK for testing no problem? Again, just trying to connect the dots.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Arrowhead

[Guest]

SY...My comment wasn't directed towards you at all. It just happened to be under yours. Sorry if there was some confusion there, brutha. All apologies.

[Guest TwilightZone]

I see this as being the biggest problem.. Basically she is asking for the scientific community to simply "take me at my word, the science is sound, it's beautiful - but you can't see it."

Agreed!

So is Sykes still looking at the unreleased Ketchum data? Is there any update on that front which anyone has heard?

I was just thinking: if you do have amazing scientific proof of Sasquatch, why not call up Spike TV and collect the 10 million dollar reward they are offering? Yes, they might have to retain several DNA experts to review it before forking over the money, but if the science is really sound I believe it would result in a payout. Then you don't need to sell your report for $30... 

This applies to stories like the Rick Dyer saga too. You get Bigfoot, you get the dough. If the 10 mil goes unclaimed, it kind of proves to me that no one has the goods they claim.

[Guest]

I want to clarify something re the law and murder.

if BF was found to be human, it wouldn't necessarily make JS liable for murder.

murder required proof of act (the killing) and intent (meaning to kill a person).

shooting a "monster" or an "ape" or an unknown creature may fall within the scope of some wildlife statutes (doubtful), but it certainly isn't murder, even if that thing's DNA after the fact is shown to be human -- no culpable intent for murder there.