The Ketchum Report

[TimB]

Dismissing a paper's validity prior to reading it seems to be an act of faith rather than logic. Perhaps we should use facts before we defend out beliefs rather then using our beliefs to interpret unread facts?

Tim B.

[Guest parnassus]

oh I don't know, tens of thousands of eyewitness reports, an abundance of really big barefoot footprints, especially lately, some very interesting audio, and of course, the fact that some very educated, qualified people , such as Bindernagel and Meldrum,etc seem to feel there is something to it. Lets face it, there is a lot of evidence something is out there. No amount of denial, or attempts to convince people hoaxers are traveling deep into the wilderness to hoax people like Derek, etc, makes enough sense to be totally credible.

When you take out the ridiculous claims from both sides, your left with something in the middle, that people see,and leave tracks.

John, I think you dodged the issue, which was not whether or not people have reported seeing a bigfoot. The issue is, when you get modern human DNA, the default position is that it came from a boy scout or a hunter or a hiker. Not from a "zebra", or in this case, even more unlikely, a creature not even known to exist. I submit that you can never say that modern human DNA came, not from a hiker/hunter/boyscout, but from a bigfoot, unless you have the bigfoot on the table, so to speak. No amount of reports or sightings or "chain of possession" type stuff can actually establish the origin with the certainty required to make the popular bigfoot into a fellow human. This is unlike the situation in which DNA was found which showed a new species, different from all known species; in that case, one would have to say that there seems to be "something out there." But with just modern human DNA, it's like Pogo said, 'we have met the enemy, and he is us."

p.

[Guest]

What if its modern DNA, but contains specific mutations, what if in the multiple samples those specific mutations show up from several different geographic area's? What if some of the samples are related, yet still show the specific mutations? These are the kind of results I would expect if its modern Human DNA. More than enough to get Dr Ketchum and the crew excited, and recruiting help. You keep wanting to make it sound like that's ridiculous, or would lead to inconclusive results, subject to interpretation or something. If Dr Ketchums study can show there is a modern Human population out there, that differs from us with inherent, specific polymorphic differences,(and often we can link gene function to what those mutations would be),then that is enough, as was stated earlier, to make science take pause. You may disagree, or attempt to semantically make it seem like its laughable,but your opinion is not something science will take into consideration, if she proves statistically that population exists.

[Guest Particle Noun]

Or, maybe they got lucky and happened to find random Boy Scout/Hiker/Deep Woods Serial killer DNA which all happens to have the same unknown or extremely rare mutations!

[JDL]

We're all just waiting for someone to nail it up on the wall so we can hang our hats on it.

Until then, it's fun to watch folks press their hats up against the wall, let go, and watch them drop to the floor.

[HOLDMYBEER]

Unfortunately, the provenance of these samples from "all across the country" cannot be proven. And, no disrespect, bigfootery is a sport in which cheating has occurred time after time.

It cannot be proven for several reasons. I have heard it said by several proponents that if the DNA shows substantially unique qualities, then 'to hell with the vetting', that science is somehow smart enough to see the truth in the data alone. As an investigator that scares me a bit, but I am no scientist.

How do you define provenance here Parn? Showing that they were left by bigfoot, or the who what,where when how they were collected?

Both, and more. Vetting the samples should determine the 'who, what, when, where and how' ...along with a whole lot more detail that gives rise to the sample being considered evidence. The totality of the vet should determine not only the viability of the sample, but its validity as evidence. My opinion only, but there should be enough documented fact to reach some level of probability the sample originated from a sasquatch.

Of course time will tell, but Dr. Ketchum has indicated many times in the past that she is well aware of this hurdle in terms of provenance, and did absolutely everything they could to ensure correct collection to minimize contamination and to make sure that this aspect of the study couldn't be used as a cudgel by those wishing to dismiss this out of hand.

Of course we'll see how well they are able to do that.

The few people I have talked with about vetting the samples in this study seem to be preoccupied with contamination issues or packaging or whether the samples would be biologically viable. They seem to limit the vetting of the sample to what is given them by the provider or what can be learned in the lab. What I have not heard much about is the examination and documentation of circumstances that led to the identification and selection of the sample. People have talked about things being found in the "vicinity of past activity" or perhaps samples being located by persons with a 'long-time interest in sasquatch' or maybe even samples that were collected from a secret, yet-to-be-published habituation site. But I have heard almost nothing about the vetting of the samples. Seems to me a sample for this study would entail a very major investigation. After all...we are talking about some pretty earth-shaking evidence here.

What is it about the NDA's or the embargos that will not allow any discussion of the vetting process? Is it the case that the DNA alone can justify the vetting process?

[Guest parnassus]

what Holdmybeer said.

---

What if its modern DNA, but contains specific mutations, what if in the multiple samples those specific mutations show up from several different geographic area's?

I could take samples from my kids and wife, and in 48 hours I could fly to 6 states and 2 foreign countries, get more samples from my brother and his family, and mail all the samples from 8 mailbox locations to Texas. Presto. 12 related modern humans with unusual but similar DNA. Costs me a thou, against a hoped-for return of millions. Or I could just do it all by mail using friends in various states who would agree to act as surrogate submitters.

Sorry, but that's on the table. Please don't act shocked or suggest it couldn't be done or that no one would do such a thing.

That's one very big reason why modern human DNA won't cut it without a body.

p.

Edited May 15, 2012 by parnassus

[Guest]

I think your attempting to make light of the validity of specific mutations or polymorphic differences. Your also not taking into consideration something entirely new might be discovered here. I don't think you debate this in the spirit of trying to establish what truly lies at the bottom of the mystery. I think you just like to debate, your tactics are unnecessary in this sort of discussion,I am not trying to "one up" you, or provide some sort of drama here. I am no expert, but I have spoken to a few, that are more than qualified, and they assure me, modern human DNA, with specific differences, is as plausible a scenario as any other. You feel free to believe its not, but it does not change the fact that real working scientist, in related fields, disagree. It just means more tests, more samples, more time.........hmmmm, more time......

[southernyahoo]

For what it's worth Holdmybeer, there is a coauthor of this paper that is said to be a hair and fiber expert, who has examined the hairs and notated the morphology. I assume this expert knows a thing or two about what would qualify as primate hairs and whether they are simply human. I think that presented circumstances of the finds, documented collection, morphology and DNA is about all that can be had in terms of provenance for most of the samples.

[Guest slimwitless]

It cannot be proven for several reasons. I have heard it said by several proponents that if the DNA shows substantially unique qualities, then 'to hell with the vetting', that science is somehow smart enough to see the truth in the data alone. As an investigator that scares me a bit, but I am no scientist.

I'm not sure why the documented recovery of hair from a cedar tree has somehow less provenance then say, a tooth found in a cave but what do I know? If this thing is really at an esteemed journal, the reviewers will certainly know more about it than anyone here.

[Guest spurfoot]

Elsewhere, I have previously pointed out the similarity of the Neanderthal holotype to Sasquatch features. For those who want to see Sasquatch remains, simply go see the holotype. BTW, Neanderthals are known to the the partial ancestors of Europeans and Asians, but not Africans.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2816957?uid=3739704&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699000293397

Edited May 15, 2012 by spurfoot

[Guest]

I don't understand why people who have already discounted the report without reading it are interested in following and contributing to this topic. What's the point? Not to be snarky, but I don't understand the motivation. I really have no opinion at this point but regularly check in for updates. It would be great to have DNA evidence that has been vetted by the scientific community to lay this controversy to rest OR to encourage further scientific investigation.

[Guest parnassus]

I think your attempting to make light of the validity of specific mutations or polymorphic differences. Your also not taking into consideration something entirely new might be discovered here. I don't think you debate this in the spirit of trying to establish what truly lies at the bottom of the mystery. I think you just like to debate, your tactics are unnecessary in this sort of discussion,I am not trying to "one up" you, or provide some sort of drama here. I am no expert, but I have spoken to a few, that are more than qualified, and they assure me, modern human DNA, with specific differences, is as plausible a scenario as any other. You feel free to believe its not, but it does not change the fact that real working scientist, in related fields, disagree. It just means more tests, more samples, more time.........hmmmm, more time......

John,

well, you can either respond to the arguments or not. If you think I have broken any rules, you can report me. The rest is just hand waving and whining, imho. What polymorphism am I underestimating?

If you'd like to tell us who these experts might be that would be great. I'd like to know who thinks the popular bigfoot could have modern DNA, and I'd like to know who thinks that modern human DNA isn't presumptively from modern humans.

I'd appreciate knowing. Who are they?

p.

[Guest Darrell]

Does anyone know what professonal or scientific journal the paper will be published in? Dont know if it was stated erlier but I just dont have the time to read thru 180 pages of discussion.

[Guest]

It's a secret. Even if somebody did know, and told, all Hell would break loose, Ketchum would have babies, my wife would accuse me of being the father cuz Ketchum is prettier than her, The BF world would be in turmoil, the Mayan calendar would be right, etc., etc., etc.