The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[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.

It depends on the state and whether there'd even be an effort to prosecute. Intent isn't always required. See e.g. "Felony murder" or "depraved-heart (or indifference) murder." Moreover, in cases where intent is required, there is almost always a jury instruction to the effect of "Intent may be inferred from the act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger," on the basis that it is generally understood that shooting someone doesn't generally lead to good results.

In this case, given that the only remains recovered from the alleged kill site were bear, it's doubtful that the state would even try to prosecute him for murder.

[Guest BartloJays]

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.

Here you go-my summary piece addresses pretty much all of your questions:

Just read carefully because it can be confusing... even to "non"-brainwashed persons

http://www.sierrasiteproject.com/2013/02/history-of-sierra-kills-tissue.html?m=1

Edited March 4, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest]

It depends on the state and whether there'd even be an effort to prosecute. Intent isn't always required. See e.g. "Felony murder" or "depraved-heart (or indifference) murder." Moreover, in cases where intent is required, there is almost always a jury instruction to the effect of "Intent may be inferred from the act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger," on the basis that it is generally understood that shooting someone doesn't generally lead to good results.

In this case, given that the only remains recovered from the alleged kill site were bear, it's doubtful that the state would even try to prosecute him for murder.

Yep. What leisureclass said.

I also don't think any Country, State or Federal Prosecutor is interested in bringing "murder charges" for the killing of an animal. I know, I know, some may not like the word "animal" - but that is how our current Judicial system would most likely define it. Besides, we gotta give the DNR something to do.

I can see what some are trying to do. The hope is that if Bigfoot is declared "human" or even in the human line - then killing one will get you charged with murder.... Lofty goal and one I don't ever see happening.

Just my opinion.

[Guest]

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

No. Far from it, the reason scientists want to see the data is to confirm her findings, without the raw data they cannot.

However she has released her paper detailing her hypothesis and she has released some snippets of data. Those can and have been evaluated. Her claims have thus been found to be pure excrement. That is not just an assumption it is the only conclusion one can make based on what has been released.

If she feels that is wrong/unfair and that the full data set is required to make her conclusions she is free release the full raw data for analysis to prove her hypothesis. In real science papers the authors will release any and all data required to confirm their conclusion. As long as she refuses that there is no other stance the community can take than to hold her claims as not only unverified but false.

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.

Again, not even close. Also, if a mathematician claims to have a solution to an unsolved problem the community most definitely would require the equation!

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.

Melba has released all that she feels is required to support her hypothesis. Qualified (and unqualified) persons have evaluated the paper and its claims. The vast majority have found it not only lacking but laughably so.

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.

She has had 5 years to 'play her hand'. Her hand was played when she released the paper.

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.

That is just silly, there is a much greater chance of a random child at a playground actually being in possession of a PS4 development unit than there is for Melba's claims to hold any water.

[Guest]

Again, with her own words, she says the nuDNA side is novel, but closer to lemur, this puts it way away from human. I think she is dead wrong, but she is her own worst enemy. As so many of our experts have pointed out, the data should be showing it is 99.5% homologous to human if the genus is going to be Homo. An argument can be made from eyewitness accounts for bigfoot to be human, but not from her DNA “evidenceâ€. Her “evidence hurts the case for Bigfoot’s humanness.

[Guest]

Again, with her own words, she says the nuDNA side is novel, but closer to lemur, this puts it way away from human. I think she is dead wrong, but she is her own worst enemy. As so many of our experts have pointed out, the data should be showing it is 99.5% homologous to human if the genus is going to be Homo. An argument can be made from eyewitness accounts for bigfoot to be human, but not from her DNA “evidenceâ€. Her “evidence hurts the case for Bigfoot’s humanness.

It's 2/3 of the way to proving ManBearPig's existence, though.

In seriousness, I don't think her "evidence" hurts the case for BF's anythingness. It's garbage, and it's been shown to be garbage.

Edited March 4, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest njjohn]

How homologous were pre-humans considered to be? Like Neanderthal and the rest?

[Guest]

Very, way over 99%.

99.7% to be exact.

[Guest]

It sounds like Ketchum isn't releasing any more DNA anytime soon. She's starting into cultural anthropology now.

Voice of Russia: Taking into consideration all the obstacles that stand on your way in publishing your research, do you intend to continue your project?

Dr Melba Ketchum: First of all, the DNA sequencing is a very complicated technique and it might take years to go through it in full. So, yes, we do continue our research. Second of all, we intend to do a cultural assessment of Sasquatch. We aim to learn how Sasquatch behave and whether they have any specific rituals.

Lots more at the link, including an explanation of her methods:

Voice of Russia: Tell us a bit more about your methods of research. I heard that you used mitochondrial DNA that you obtained from leftover blueberry bagels eaten by a family of 10 bigfoot’s who live in Michigan.

Dr Melba Ketchum: Oh, this is not true! Admittedly, one can obtain a DNA sample from anything that an individual ate or chewed because saliva is a very good source of DNA, but we did not use any bagels. We made plastic containers where we placed a piece of food, such as chocolate. This way, we could ensure that only a creature that had ‘hands’ could gain access to the food. We then used food remnants as our DNA samples.

This is one of the very few methods that we can use to study Sasquatch. It is almost impossible, for example to get any photographic record or a body. Although, I must say that there is now a photographic record that will soon be released.

My dog must be a sasquatch, 'cause he has no problem getting into plastic containers.

[Guest thermalman]

Melba said in this interview: http://www.earthfile...ategory=Science

"They ARE human and with that extra intelligence, you have a better ability to avoid humans."

Really? Because I have been trying to avoid other humans all my life ----- and I am a pretty smart cookie LOL.

Thermalman ----

How do you (or any of us know) her "science" is right - when she has not released the Raw Data. Just about everyone who has spoken, in the scientific community, is asking to see this data yet she will not show it. What exactly did all these people pay 30 bucks for? A lesson in Bigfoot History and portions of the Erickson Video? 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."

I am not a scientist - but I am willing to bet - that's not how it works.

At this point, it's all the public has. You're right about the "How do you (or any of us know) her "science" is right - when she has not released the Raw Data." But it would have to be considered the most concrete evidence we have until it is rightly refute. It can't be called wrong, because there is nothing else to compare to at this point. I'm giving MK the benefit of the doubt because she has taken the BF subject to the next level, regardless of the results.

Edited March 4, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest thermalman]

My bold-TM

"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.")

They derived their assumptions without the "Raw Data" everyone has been calling for?

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.

Time to put up or forever hold your peace!

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?"

You won't even disclose the "MK stated Angel DNA", which leaves you running on empty. At least MK came forth with some results and is facing the music, which is far more honorable than any secret moonshine results.

"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.

[Oonjerah]

@ Dr.MK

If you’re going to talk the talk, you’ve got to walk the walk.

Well done is better than well said.

Talkers are no good doers: be assured, We come to use our hands and not our tongues.

Actions speak louder than words.

[Guest]

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.

Hey SY - I respect you and your work, and I'm not surprised (I admire) to see you stand by a study that you contributed to personally. My issue is why would BF DNA be different from EVERYTHING else in the world? Especially when it is alleged to be the product of 2 'things' with normal DNA - isn't it a bit like A + B being = to not AB, or even C, but rather A + B = */@ ?

She needs to release the raw data. I have the feeling that is where this "lemur/human" data is - and that's probably why she isn't releasing it... She doesn't want anyone to ruin her theory.

Hey Mel - the phylogenetic tree in the paper showed then as closer to lemur than other primate groups - I remember sitting there staring at it for a while, and acknowledging to myself that no, this wasn't a stroke of insightful genius, rather anything but...

I think the Lemur gear was explained by Tylers mate - the human data on it's own looked like human; the bear data on its own looked like bear; the odds and ends on their own looked like odds and ends and (possible) artifacts. HOWEVER... the human/bear/odds-ends-artifacts all together look like Lemur (a bit, if you squint, stand on one foot, and look at it sideways...).

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.

Tyler. Mate. I love MOST of the stuff you post. Most. But what's the point of this? It's no different from taking Musky's word on RD, or Paulides on you and Bart, or Melba on her not using Angel DNA. I'm sick of the super secret squirrel excuse - especially when in almost every case it's being used to counter 'the word' of someone else.

Note to forum - got secret info? Cool. Good news. Don't tell us about it until you can tell us about it ALL. Carry on.

Ta,

FG

[Guest]

At this point, it's all the public has. You're right about the "How do you (or any of us know) her "science" is right - when she has not released the Raw Data." But it would have to be considered the most concrete evidence we have until it is rightly refute. It can't be called wrong, because there is nothing else to compare to at this point. I'm giving MK the benefit of the doubt because she has taken the BF subject to the next level, regardless of the results.

It has been refuted. It is either contamination, fabrication, or proof that something made bigfoot in a lab like the ‘Island of Doctor Moreau†(bear-pig-lemur man)

[Guest thermalman]

It's 2/3 of the way to proving ManBearPig's existence, though.

In seriousness, I don't think her "evidence" hurts the case for BF's anythingness. It's garbage, and it's been shown to be garbage.

It can't be shown as garbage if some of the evidence is unavailable. (raw data) Just as easily as the raw data could prove that her evidence is garbage, once released, the raw data could prove infallible proof of BF as well.

Edited March 5, 2013 by thermalman