The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

jerrywayne,

Can a hair be excluded from being modern human by physical examination?

indiefoot,

As I understand it, physical examination through the glass will clue you in as to whether the hair is human or not. Are you suggesting a distinction between "modern human" and relict human or human subspecies, or am I reading too much into your question?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

You know they exist? How so?

RayG

I trust that at least a few of the people who have seen one really saw one. Even if one of those sightings were real (not a hoax or misidentification), imagine what it would mean!...

There are hundreds of really good class A sightings to read about. We're not dealing with fairy's or dragons. I really hope people realize that.

[indiefoot]

jerrywayne,

You asked how someone could get DNA consistant with moderm human and somehow come to the conclusion it could be Bigfoot, I just showed you.

[JDL]

There is no proof that Zana was nothing more than a ugly, hairy, woman.

Isn't that Parn's line?

[Guest Shaun]

There is no proof that Zana was nothing more than a ugly, hairy, woman.

That's spot on. DNA testing and a cat scan proved Zana was human.

[Guest]

Isn't that Parn's line?

Well, regardless of who you would think would make the statement, all it takes is a little reading and research to clarify the obvious.

[Guest RayG]

I trust that at least a few of the people who have seen one really saw one. Even if one of those sightings were real (not a hoax or misidentification), imagine what it would mean!...

There are hundreds of really good class A sightings to read about. We're not dealing with fairy's or dragons. I really hope people realize that.

In other words, you don't know. When it comes to bigfoot, trust no one.

We're not dealing with mermaids, werewolves, chupacabras, or aliens either, yet people continue to report seeing them.

RayG

[JDL]

Well, regardless of who you would think would make the statement, all it takes is a little reading and research to clarify the obvious.

I disagree.

That's spot on. DNA testing and a cat scan proved Zana was human.

Or close to human, yet still of a different species. How can you rule this out, particularly since the DNA techniques used were dated? Were the techniques used sufficiently specific to pinpoint species, or is it probable that they were non-specific to the extent that they effectively identified genus, but not species.

If one consistently assumes that human is the only answer, one will consistently default to their own assumptions. Consider that there may be something deeper than the surface of one's prejudice.

Edited May 18, 2012 by JDL

[Guest]

In other words, you don't know. When it comes to bigfoot, trust no one.

Including Skeptics.

We're not dealing with mermaids, werewolves, chupacabras, or aliens either, yet people continue to report seeing them.

RayG

Have nothing to do with BF, being different types of critters (mystic in the case of the first 3, and extraterrestrial in the 4th case).

There is nothing about BF that requires either accepting magic or re-evaluating basic laws of physics to accept.

[Guest Tontar]

There is nothing about BF that requires either accepting magic or re-evaluating basic laws of physics to accept.

Really? I'd say that is completely false. There are plenty of ideas and even reports about bigfoot that absolutely DO require accepting magic, and that defy the laws of physics. Bio-stealth, bio-cloaking, telepathy, the ability to vanish into thin air, bodies that vaporize upon death, claims they ARE aliens, mind control, many of the habituation claims include magical abilities that the bigfoots have. Not to mention they are just about the only animal that is accepted as factually existing by a given segment of the population which has not a single tangible, substantial bit of biological matter to verify it does exist.

Accepting that bigfoot exists does in fact require the suspension of disbelief. The evidence is against existence, so one needs to relax the normal, logical requirements in order for bigfoot to be real. Some toss the reason out the window as fast as they can. Some refuse to dismiss logic and reason (and thus don't believe), and there are some that give a bit of that reason up gently, hoping that something shows up to show it was worth that suspension of disbelief. :-)

Oh, by the way, nothing new on the report results yet? No publishing date, no word on when it might come out? Still waiting on something?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Tontar

[Guest]

There is nothing about BF that requires either accepting magic or re-evaluating basic laws of physics to accept.

The proof is out there, it just won't be in the Ketchum Report!

[Guest MikeG]

Tontar,

your post suggests that if someone accepts that sasquatch exists, they have to accept that all the extraneous myths that have built up around the subject must all be factual. You know very well that this isn't the case. It is perfectly possible to picture a scenario where a normal flesh-and-blood creature, without any magic powers and physics-defying abilities, has simply evaded us for a few hundred years.

I can accept the latter. I can't accept magic or physics-defying as an explanation for anything.

Mike

[Guest BFSleuth]

The evidence is against existence...

... and as a follow up I'd like to point out this particular logical fallacy.

You have evidence they don't exist?

Do tell.

[Guest Tontar]

That's not what I was suggesting. I agree, it is possible to accept the flesh and blood, undiscovered primate in the forest idea. I can even go that route because I allow myself the guilty pleasure of wanting it to be true. But my response was not that one HAS to believe in the screwdoo ideas.

The original claim was that "there is nothing about BF that requires accepting magic..." The fact is, there definitely are some things that require accepting magic. I know what he was getting at when he said that, but he said it wrong. You said it better.

These forums deal with discussion and debate, and accuracy is everything. Thinking accurately, and writing accurately. If someone makes a mistake, then cool, change it to be more correct. But there are far too many vague, inaccurate things posed as facts and truths, that build upon one another like a house of cards.

And so, it's not true that nothing about BF requires magic. There is a lot that does. There may not be any magic needed for the basics, but even so there still needs to be some suspension of disbelief... :-)

... and as a follow up I'd like to point out this particular logical fallacy.

You have evidence they don't exist?

This is always my favorite line from The Loch Ness Incident:

"The skeptics are always saying, 'show me the evidence" and I say to them, 'show me the non-evidence!'"

Evidence of non-existence is a the logical fallacy, dude. You can't show evidence of something that doesn't exist. But there are some tell tale signs, however. Like not one single bit of organic material from one. Not one little bit of cellular tissue. Not one single cell. Not one single hair. Not one single poop. Not one single bone. Not a tooth. Nothing. Footprints in sand and mud? Sorry, there's no proof of what made those prints. I could enlist a dozen ex-high school buddies scattered across teh nation now, and we all could start making giant, three toed thunderbird footprints in a variety of places. Scrape up readily available vulture poop from underneath roost trees and leave that around the prints. We could do that for a few years, and feed in some reports now and then about sightings, and with all that "evidence" would we have actually created a real, living thunderbird species? Nope.

So you want to know what non-evidence there is? There is the non-evidence of the bigfoots themselves. Prove to me that there is no such thing as my proposed giant thunderbirds. Prove they don't exist. Show me the non-evidence. You can't! Hahahahahaha, you can't prove that my magical thunderbirds don't exist, so because you can't prove they don't exist, they must have the possibility of existing, right?

You want to talk about logical fallacies? You're actually on the wrong side of the jury on that one.

But maybe you will call me on existing evidence that would indicate they don't exist. There's a distinct lack of evidence they do exist. There is also evidence, substantial evidence, that sightings and tracks have been faked. The only thing that suggests they might exist are tracks, sightings, and the PGF. Tracks and sightings have been shown to be faked in many cases. That is evidence against the track making primates existing. That leaves the PGF. That's why the PGF is so valuable, so precious, and so worthy of defending tooth and nail. It is the most compelling piece of evidence that bigfoot exists. Without it, the rest is pretty weak, and already established as easy to fake. So the biggest, most important piece of evidence for bigfoot to exist is the PGF. There's a lot of evidence against it being authentic. Which requires radical tactics to dismiss that evidence, and radical tactics to try to assert otherwise.

Evidence that proves hoaxers have been hoaxing is substantial, material evidence against the existence of bigfoot. Substantial evidence against the PGF being authentic is evidence against the existence of bigfoot. There's plenty of evidence against any of the existing "evidence of existence" being authentic. Eliminate the supposedly authentic evidence, and you have nothing to support the existence of the beast.

So what physical, organic evidence is there to support existence? DNA? From where? I keep waiting for the story to break, but it looks like it's starting to get a bit strange lately, and may never see the light of day. How long will it be strung along before it gets old and seen as a ruse? At what point does a story become a story and nothing more? Any word on when this report might be made public?

[Guest Particle Noun]

So what physical, organic evidence is there to support existence? DNA? From where? I keep waiting for the story to break, but it looks like it's starting to get a bit strange lately, and may never see the light of day. How long will it be strung along before it gets old and seen as a ruse? At what point does a story become a story and nothing more? Any word on when this report might be made public?

Well, we now have a professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University conducting a parallel study on his own. Does this really indicate to you that there is nothing there? Would someone of that caliber in that particular field of interest throw away time and money on something which was as dismiss able as you find it?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Particle Noun