The Ketchum Report

[JDL]

The article states that the Comstock Lode was discovered in 1857 and that silver was discovered in 1859. How is this inconsistent with my account?

[Guest Transformer]

^^^ I would think the big section on who discovered the gold and silver deposits and how and where and when they were discovered and the fact that nothing even remotely close to the tall tale you refer to is even mentioned would show the inconsistency.

[JDL]

Virginia City, by the way, was a big part of my youth. I spent quite a bit of time there with my father poking around those old mines, experiencing the history of the area. You see, I grew up near there, and my father, a geologist who got his degree at the University of Nevada, where mining history is a big part of the program, ran both of the geochemical analysis laboratories in Reno from 1972 on. First Rocky Mountain Geochemical, then Barringer Resources.

From the article you cite:

"The gold from Gold Canyon came from quartz veins, toward the head of the vein, in the vicinity of where Silver City and Gold Hill now stand. As the miners worked their way up the stream, they founded the town of Johntown on a plateau. In 1857, the Johntown miners found gold in Six-Mile Canyon, which is about five miles (8 km) north of Gold Canyon. Both of these canyons are on what is now known as the Comstock Lode."

Gold in 1857. Silver in 1859. I'm not seeing your point.

^^^ I would think the big section on who discovered the gold and silver deposits and how and where and when they were discovered and the fact that nothing even remotely close to the tall tale you refer to is even mentioned would show the inconsistency.

I would like to know if you are actually versed in the history of this area. Quite frankly, it's offensive that you would make this claim when the article you reference actually confirms the timeline in what you refer to as my "tall tale".

Edited May 9, 2012 by JDL

[Guest]

It's backwards to say here is the genetic makeup of an unknown mammal before that animal is even known to exist. You can have a string of DNA letters a mile long and show that to me and it means nothing. Show me a vid or a pic of it, with the samples too and I'm sold.

You don't think universities and labs would jump at the chance to do DNA testing for free if they were lucky enough to be chosen? If it were me, I'd jump at the chance.

We know who several contributors of samples are, why do we not know a single co-author? "hi, I'm John doe phd. Yes this is a bona fide discovery but I can not release any more details at this time. Thanks." but no such thing.

I want to know is there a time limit for the submitters to pull out and go elsewhere? If I were to sign a contract to keep quiet, there darn sure would be a clause for an exit plan.

[Cotter]

Perhaps some PhD's don't want to be involved in the pre-publish circus.

I think folks are a bit different in how they'd react and it's really a case by case basis on how the pre-publish behavior by the participants would/will pan out.

However, all are questions that cannot be answered at this time.

[Guest MikeG]

Hoosierfoot,

I'm not clear what you are saying. Are you suggesting that we could somehow have the DNA of something we have never had DNA from before, but that it might not be from a new animal?

Just because you don't understand DNA doesn't mean that you can dismiss it, or expect scientists to dismiss it. As one of regular contributors is often pointing out, DNA=critter. DNA is actually BETTER evidence by a million miles for the existence of a creature than any photo or video.

Mike

[Guest spurfoot]

Here is my speculation about what the Ketchum report could potentially include:

1) An estimate of the time since the origin of the species or genus.

2) A taxonomic determination whether the subject is a different species or genus. It doesn't matter a lot. Taxonomy is now secondary to DNA for classification purposes. Taxons are just a short hand way of describing the general DNA content. Quite likely, this taxonomic determination will be made in conjunction with authorities in the field. Nomenclature will be specified.

3) Relationship to non-Sasquatch taxa.

4) Traits and characteristics of the Sasquatch as inferred from the DNA.

5) Geographical variety, perhaps subspecies. No information is yet available whether specimens from other continents were analyzed. Taxonomical relationships between geographic varieties. hybridization.

6) Perhaps, cytological analyses of various specimens. Could include molecular and microscopic and macroscopic traits.

7) Comparison of the DNA with unpublished analyses (if any) such as by Nelson, Fahrenbach, Sykes .

Both nuclear and mitochondrial analysis.

[HOLDMYBEER]

Saskeptic, JDL, SY, BFS,

I don't want to seem dismissive of all BFRO data. It serves a purpose. I do, however, have strong reservations about drawing conclusions from the mass of it. That reporting system, even with all its limitations, is a first step and, to this point, the best step in collecting reports in North America. Some of the reports in the database appear to be well done.

As for vetting efforts, the BFRO system is a self-report system (and in some cases done so anonymously). I have no doubt the investigators have a long-time interest in the subject, but I am not aware of them having any specific investigative training that qualifies all of their judgements. The class B reports are 'possible' events. Most of the class A reports tend to be vetted to the degree of a phone call, maybe an interview. (And quite frankly, when a report is years old there usually isn't much else that can be done.) I am here to say I have never met the investigator that could reliably detect deception from only an interview. Tossing all those reports aside and focusing only on reports featuring corroborated evidence likely leaves an N of very little, but I admit I don't know that number. SY, your point about who does the vetting and to what standard is noted. I can only respond by saying that In the world of investigations there are very definite standards to be met, and for good reason. One of the standards is that an investigation produce a comprehensive report that is available for review.

The authors of the ENM paper did some sort of filtering, what they did it isn't really spelled out. As the paper is described as a tongue-in-cheek example, I am not sure the authors really meant the paper to be taken very far. It is for these reasons I question drawing general conclusions from that data.

[Guest]

Dr K herself has stated most of the paper will be above the general public's heads and she will have to summarize what the jargon means. If this is ever released as claimed with Erickson's footage, do you think folks in general will be more interested in the 5 minutes of footage or a scientist rambling about DNA strains and origins for a couple hours? The phrase from a 90's movie "show ms the money!" comes to mind. We want to see one. Here is another example: which event did the general public accept more initially as fact?--> Saddam Hussein being captured, or Bin Laden being captured and killed? They have DNA from both men, but people believe Saddam more because of............footage!

If you can't tell, I was all in and drooling over this announcement set for April. But that was April 2011, remember? My hope has dwindled so much, I'm almost over to the skeptic side now. Do I think Sasquatch exists? Maybe. Probably. Do i think the "Ketchum Report"

Will prove it? No. I guess you could say I woke up to reality.

[JDL]

Even those of us who have no doubt regarding existence are prone to discard much of what we read. Most of the rest falls into the category of possible but unverified. It is a rare report that I find so compelling that I view it as completely accurate.

How we evaluate new evidence is based in part on experience. Paradoxically on the surface, those with first-hand experience regarding bigfoot are often more likely to call BS than proponents without direct experience. There's a lot of purported information regarding bigfoot that doesn't match up with what i've experienced.

[Drew]

Dr K herself has stated most of the paper will be above the general public's heads and she will have to summarize what the jargon means. If this is ever released as claimed with Erickson's footage, do you think folks in general will be more interested in the 5 minutes of footage or a scientist rambling about DNA strains and origins for a couple hours?

You don't want the writer to summarize it for you, you want a neutral third party, who is familiar with DNA sequencing and GENBANK to look at it and tell you how it affects anthropology as a whole.

We have waited long enough for the paper, imagine how long it will take for her to come out with lay-version of it.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I would think that the lay version is likely prepared and ready in advance of the paper's publication. Hence the web site they are developing.

[Guest MikeG]

imagine how long it will take for her to come out with lay-version of it.

Yep.....about half an afternoon in my view. There will be press releases for all of the papers, and mags like National Geographic. They won't want the science.....they'll want the "heads of terms"........bullet points.....and a few decent photos. I'd be astonished if all that simple stuff wasn't written already.

Mike

[Guest Particle Noun]

Surely it is. As a matter of fact I know it is. Ms. Ramey has been collecting intelligent questions for their Q&A site regarding the paper, and I know that has been under production for a while.

And the journal itself will likely have a good abstract at the ready for news organizations.

This isn't a lemonade stand people.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Also bear in mind that journalists will be given an advance of the paper to prepare their news articles when the embargo is released.