The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Mulder,

Oh we're back to the DNA comes from something question. The answer is obvious.....of course it comes from something!

I didnt think you actually wanted me to answer the question, thought it was like you tag line or

something

There ya go the "challenge" has been answered!!

Further evasion attempt noted.

It is clear to me you are unable or unwilling to take up the challenge.

Your concession is accepted.

Sorry - mobile device mix-up on formatting.

I have no idea what Ketchum's work entails, and I won't until such time that a paper describing it is published. So neither I nor anyone else could determine that it would "not be enough" to prove the reality of bigfoot.

There are a number of Skeptics on this forum you need to explain that to.

I didn't bring my post above back around to the thread, so it appears off-topic. Point is, there've been scores of reports of very tall indian skeletons excavated from mounds throughout the 1800's, all of which were spirited off to various institutions and never seen again. It suggests that there was a race of tall native Americans that went extinct. These remains are lost in the bowels of various academic and scientific institutions and may never again see the light of day.

With advances in DNA we've been able to sequence the neandertal and denisova genomes, and in the case of denisova, this was done with very little to go on. Yet here we have evidence of a possible new species already in possession by academic institutions who have access to technology that could easily tell if they were simply tall humans, or another species and no one's checking it out.

The Si-Teh-Cah skeletons may be of the same race. Their height indicates the possibility. They could also be unique unto themselves. Either way, their remains exist and an enterprising academic could make a name for himself by tracking them down and sequencing them.

It seems to me that the larger scientific community does have some inherent bias when it comes to such remains collected almost a century ago or more. Neandertal were very clearly not modern human so they got special attention, but others, that were close to modern human, but still consistently anomolous have been looked upon as simply tall people. If someone excavated a mound today and they were found today, they would be all the rage, but now that the science of DNA has caught up to the bones found a century and a half ago, no one seems interested in revisiting them.

Why is that? Do the attitude toward this particular set of type specimens and the attitude toward bigfoot evidence stem from a common root bias among thought leaders in the related disciplines?

"Bring me a body to prove you have a new hominid species."

But academia has bodies that are probably from at least an uncatalogued native American race, and possibly from an uncatalogued hominid species. All they've got to do is locate them in the basement and apply modern science. Why isn't this being done?

For the same reason the Scientific Establishment denies the Solutrean evidence, as well as that for a 10,000 year old Sphinx, the ancient voyages to America on the part of the Chinese, Polynesians, and multiple other groups, "Ooparts" ("out of place" or otherwise "anachronistic artifacts): because they upset too many academic apple carts.

In case after case, reports of giant skulls or other anomalous skeletal parts can be traced to a newspaper or magazine article and no further. This indicates that such artifacts never really existed in the first place, not that there's some sort of scientific conspiracy to cover them up.

And your evidence to support that claim is?

Translation: you can't answer the challenge.

Hardly. Jodie's (well meant) question was to vague for anything other than a vague answer. The specifics of my rebuttal would depend on the situation at that point and the nature of the putative objection.

MY question is specific and direct. I shall repeat it again, consisting of two related questions:

1) Please explain to me a viable alternate theory as to where DNA comes from other than a biological sample.

2) Please explain to me how DNA from an undocumented primate (which is the proposed finding of the study) could come from anything other than an undocumented primate.

But they still don't know what the Starchild is SY.

"When you have eliminated the (im)possible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth..." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

EDIT to add: Here's a good example of the Smithsonian playing "fast and loose" with it's science when the subject threatens to make too many waves:

http://www.edconrad.com/

Edited April 3, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Unfortunately Sherlock Holmes and Spock would never be able to eliminate the impossible 'round here.

[JDL]

P.S. I've seen bigger pestles here in the Sierra's...

See, now you're bragging again.

[Guest Cervelo]

Mulder,

What is the question or "challenge"?

I think I've stated my position pretty clearly perhaps you need to do some review maybe you missed it.

Not really sure what's been conceded but as long as you feel "victorious" lol good for you;)

[southernyahoo]

When someone can tell me what it is then I guess we would, so far, all I am hearing is what it isn't.

It is whatever we choose to name it, so long as it isn't something with a previous binomial.

[Guest]

Ed Conrad, Mulder? Really?

[Guest slimwitless]

Mulder,

What is the question or "challenge"?

I think I've stated my position pretty clearly perhaps you need to do some review maybe you missed it.

Not really sure what's been conceded but as long as you feel "victorious" lol good for you;)

At one point Mulder asked you to respond to a question why Denisovan was happily identified via DNA in a finger bone but recent DNA from "tissue, blood and bone" (according to Paulides) wouldn't be enough to identify a new species/sub-species of hominid.

[Guest Jodie]

Hey Mulder, I'm going to send you a PM about that particular Oopart example rather than derail the thread.

[Guest]

I'd like to see a serious investigation into the contemporary acquisitions and holdings of those institutions to which such material would have been sent back in the day.

Go for it. If you're under some pretense that only a "credentialed scientist" (as opposed to a regular guy like Brian Dunning) is qualified to undertake such an investigation, then by all means focus your energies on the kind of inquiry you would find satisfactory.

[TimB]

At one point Mulder asked you to respond to a question why Denisovan was happily identified via DNA in a finger bone but recent DNA from "tissue, blood and bone" (according to Paulides) wouldn't be enough to identify a new species/sub-species of hominid.

I hope we can talk about this objectively- rather than make it a "what side are you on?" thing. This is the question that needs to be answered before the conversation can move forward.

Tim B.

[Guest Jodie]

I said the circumstances do matter in how, where, and what circumstances surround the discovery of the specimen.

[JDL]

Go for it. If you're under some pretense that only a "credentialed scientist" (as opposed to a regular guy like Brian Dunning) is qualified to undertake such an investigation, then by all means focus your energies on the kind of inquiry you would find satisfactory.

It's not about credentials, it's about documentation. I'll take Dunning more seriously if tells us where he looked (and where he didn't look) for information to back up his claim.

In the military we referred to such statements as "handwaving" if an officer was briefing a group and didn't have the substance to back up his assertions (watch my hands as they move, not the info on the screen; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). Dunning's article is a distraction, no more, without specific information on how he reached his conclusion.

Heck, maybe in a year or so I'll offer a grant myself to a graduate student willing to perform an audit of remains acquired during the 19th century in the possession of various museums, universities, and scientific foundations.

[Incorrigible1]

Are you implying there is a concerted effort to minimize information about reputed giant skeletons?

[JDL]

Nope, just that the investigation has not been thorough to date.

I do believe that there are some who do not take it seriously, though, and there is a tendency to explain away the anomolous.

Personally, I think that there are plenty of false claims and hoaxes out there. But, the accounts of seven foot tall skeletons are consistent despite the variety of secondary charactersitics reported, and I have seen three taller than average mummified skeletons recovered by guano miners, so I know that some remains do exist, assuming that they have not been destroyed since I last saw them.

DNA analysis may verify that they were simply modern humans belonging to an undocumented culture, but that in and of itself would be pretty cool from an academic standpoint.

Edited April 3, 2012 by JDL

[Guest]

If he doesn't I will...grin!