The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Guest]

SY have you not been paying attention over the last several years????

 

The endgame was always for BF to be human. Always.

 

As far is Iam aware, the "human" came into account as the results turned out to be MtDNA human and NuDNA something else. After the testing. But its true that the Robert Lindsay leak spread that "knowledge" years before "publication". I dont see where you see her assuming "human" Bigfoot before DNA testing. Testing the samples for human MtDNA is not controversial regarding the study. Disotel got it too. The question is whats about the Nu part. If its just human as well, its very likely contamination. If not, its not from an known human source. Likely to be BF. In my opinion.

 

As far as my little knowledge about DNA and genetics goes. Besides simple fraud, it isnt really possible to get "Bear-DNA" to look like human DNA. All you could do in the way of achieving a desired result in this case would be to ignore all signs of contamination and accept contaminant human DNA present in the sample. This would be an extreme lack in scientific practice. I dont know the paper, I dont know what they really did to exclude contamination, but from the beginning this was what Dr. Ketchum talked on end since going public. 

 

All in all I think until someone independent retests the samples up to NuDNA and falsifies Dr. Ketchums findings I dont see a reason to call it bogus sience or similar. Sientists that judge the sience by the way it is publicated, or the idea of something strange or unlikely alone, dont yield credit at all.

[southernyahoo]

Sorry SY,  but you lost me on this one as well...

 

Humans are great apes. We get human results because the tracks are human or human like, the sounds are often humanlike, the hair samples are human or humanlike, the descriptions of BF's face are humanlike, their locomotion is like ours or the PGF would be proof. So the DNA being human is an ape result but points to divergence rather than a convergent origin. It may be less acceptable to people who think of them as beasts, but like I said earlier, if there is no other result for prospective BF samples, and BF exists, then the idea they are human will only strengthen. Thats what I see happening.

 

 

BPC, I've been watching and reading everything since 2005, I participated in the study with a submitted sample and knew results before it's release, I knew about the SS kills sample 6 months before RL broke with his story,  I've watched sample after sample be tested on TV, human or known animal is all we get. Ketchum say's she went through her results with a fine tooth comb, hoping to find the deviations that would prove Sasquatch to be distinct from human, who wouldn't with all that effort and data?  I've shared her words in respect to this privately with resident experts on this forum in the past since it's release.  She had one sample with a single novel mutation that had not been logged in genbank up to that point in genbank for humans out of 113 samples.

 

There were numerous contributors to the study, some of which are well known. Robert Alley, Fahrenbach on behalf of Paul Freeman, numerous credentialed biologists, amatuer field researchers, Curt Nelson (Snelgrove Lake sample) , Dereck Randles, the list goes on. If any of these people could have sent a nonhuman ape sample in, they darn sure would have, and I have no doubts Ketchum would not have deliberately skewed the results to be human because she wanted proof, there was no point in touching this subject without it. 

[chelefoot]

Ah, with all the human vs. apes talk, that pesky little fact that humans are  apes slipped my mind!

[southernyahoo]

^ Really?     

[chelefoot]

[southernyahoo]

 

 Trick question then, 4 parts.

 

1. Is this track human or nonhuman ape?

2. How does it differ from nonhuman ape footprints?

3. Does it differ at all from human tracks?

4. How does it differ from sasquatch/ bigfoot tracks? (not considering size here)

[chelefoot]

No fair! If it's a trick question, I'm sure to get it wrong! 

 

So, I will be safe and say: How do I know it is even a real footprint?

[southernyahoo]

Trust me......ok thats another trick isn't it?    It's a real track, and part of this trackway..........

 

http://www.texlaresearch.com/report6_08.htm

 

9 inch tracks aren't worth hoaxing , I mean, who would think it was bigfoot?

 

So it's no trick there, just tricky knowing the youngster(s) were hirsute or not.  

[chelefoot]

Well, I guess I would look at the width as compared to the length as well as whether there was an arch...

See, I'm really not an expert. I just read and learn what I can from you guys!

[Guest thermalman]

Rats!!!!!!!! I was gonna guess Hulk!

 

Edited August 3, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest]

All in all I think until someone independent retests the samples up to NuDNA and falsifies Dr. Ketchums findings I dont see a reason to call it bogus sience or similar. Sientists that judge the sience by the way it is publicated, or the idea of something strange or unlikely alone, dont yield credit at all.

 

Which she refuses to allow after being offered many opportunities.

[southernyahoo]

Who's offering to retest samples? 

[Guest]

SY,

Sasquatch hair morphology is not human appearing, while sasquatch hair maternal DNA is 100% human. This is your argument. Do you know of any other mammal species whose hair morphology does not suggest its maternal DNA identity? Seems like a this would be a line of argument you may want to pursue, by analogy.

On your tracks: did I miss the step length in the text? How heavy would you estimate the person leaving the tracks (assuming either human person or sasquatch person)?

[southernyahoo]

 

SY,

Sasquatch hair morphology is not human appearing, while sasquatch hair maternal DNA is 100% human. This is your argument. Do you know of any other mammal species whose hair morphology does not suggest its maternal DNA identity? Seems like a this would be a line of argument you may want to pursue, by analogy.

On your tracks: did I miss the step length in the text? How heavy would you estimate the person leaving the tracks (assuming either human person or sasquatch person)?

 

When working with "known" morphology and "known" DNA sequences, there would'nt be anything analogous. If my sample really isn't within defined human morphology and yet does give human DNA then it would mean that either the sample is a unidentified and contaminated "known" animal hair or it is a human hair with uncataloged "unknown" morphology.

On the tracks, I wasn't present when other team members found the tracks. I don't think the depth and stride we anything remarkable. The points that made them interesting were that.....

1. They emerged from the woods to the river bank and then back to the woods.(a kyacker would emerge from the water onto the bank and back to the water.)

2. Going barefooted in that environment would risk injury to the feet.

3. No other sign of recent human activity ie: vehicle tire tracks ATV tracks etc. (The place is a privately owned and seldom used fishing camp, hence the bucket tied to the tree)

4. Sighting reports in the area, including my son's earlier that year.

5. Classic prior audible events in the area including howls, whoops, bipedal foot steps, woodknocks etc.

( one set of knocks heard while casting one of the tracks). Thats not in that write up on the tracks and should be amended.

6. The tracks are relatively flat and some show good flex and toe grasping.

[Guest]

Does anybody know if there is retesting and reinvestigation on the way? After the flawed publication, Dr. Ketchum said something about sientists reviewing her paper/samples.