The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

I apologize for contributing to the hijacking of a thread. I also think it has spurred some really good discussion all around -- I think many of the explanations for theoretical problems in bigfoot diet are very plausible! But I would like to reiterate that my initial point about diet was simply in response to the "no evidence against the existence of bigfoot", and I think the level of discussion and the good points on either side do show that theoretical bigfoot diet is at least something warranting good discussion on either side and therefore -- just like photos, tracks, hair, sightings -- constitutes evidence. Whether that evidence is strong enough to overpower counter evidence... well, there's the rub. But I really think to say there is "no skeptical evidence for the non-existence of bigfoot" is not true. There are basic physiological "rules" to animal survival, and bigfoot (likely) subscribes to these just like any other animal.

I would also like to ask a genuine question.

As we've already pointed out, there are more or less two possible eating patterns for large mammals on either ends of the spectrum. They can hunt, expending large amounts of energy but gaining large amounts of calories from the kill; or they can forage, taking in smaller amounts of calories but expending very little energy to do so. Yes, the lines blur. At any rate, I've only thought of bigfoot as foragers, because that closely resembles the survival model of other large primates (orangutan, gorilla, even the jaws of gigantopithecus imply foraging). Of course, as has been pointed out, that isn't necessarily the case. My question then is, how do bigfoot take down elk/deer? It seems like anything with bipedal locomotion would necessarily be much slower than these quadrupeds, but I haven't thought about it very much...

There is the third model (omivorism). The wear pattern on Giganto teeth suggest an omnivorous diet, as has been noted several times, similar to that of the chimpanzee (who is also omnivorus, not herbivorous as commonly believed).

New research is showing that gorillas also eat meat on occasion, along with baboons, most small monkeys, and organgutans have been known to eat eggs.

Back on topic, as to how they would hunt large ungulates and other fauna, the reports seem to indicate that they are ambush predators, and that they hunt co-operatively, much as chimpanzees do.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

@ Mulder

orangutans also eat fish, when the water level of river and creeks falls trapping the fish, they have a field day.

[HOLDMYBEER]

I gather you are recomending throwing out samples collected where it snows, because the snow would have given them away by tracking, and they would be found or seen more? So would you then be dismissing the sightings of them during snowy conditions, and the fact that this may have lead to finding the samples?

No, although I can see where you might think that. I am only saying that I, an admitted layman in the science world, would demand one very serious vet of the circumstances generating the sample before I could accept the sample as evidence. Please tell me that science can read the truth from the data alone.

[georgerm]

He says: "This 'may' be Zana". The narrator then says the skull "...is 'rumored' to belong to Zana."

Well thanks for posting the video. Too bad Zana was human but the caves in Mongolia need more exploring. The Almas are not going to come out the first night.

Edited May 21, 2012 by georgerm

[Guest BFSleuth]

I am only saying that I, an admitted layman in the science world, would demand one very serious vet of the circumstances generating the sample before I could accept the sample as evidence. Please tell me that science can read the truth from the data alone.

You make an excellent point. The method of data collection is discussed in any scientific paper, and in the case of this paper would be a focal point for discussion as the collection of the samples and how they became part of the data set will be of particular importance. Given that the scientists involved in the DNA analysis and review did not personally collect all the samples they would need to be able to establish a clear provenance for each sample.

[Guest]

No, although I can see where you might think that. I am only saying that I, an admitted layman in the science world, would demand one very serious vet of the circumstances generating the sample before I could accept the sample as evidence. Please tell me that science can read the truth from the data alone.

Yes it can. The DNA is the DNA, whether the sample comes from the slopes of Mt Ranier or from Upstate New York.

Your argument to throw out samples based on your incorrect perception of the nature of how much wilderness there is in the US is an extended arguement from credulity.

[Guest Transformer]

I think the point HOLDMYBEER is making is that a scientist must be able to show unequivocally that the DNA sample was collected from where it was stated it was collected, was not contaminated by human or other DNA, was not "planted" by someone attempting to establish multiple locations using the same DNA source, and was not subject to any manipulation from the time it was collected to the time it was analyzed. That is very important in any type of scientific endeavor and numerous scientists have been fooled or fooled others by planting or fudging information. I am not saying that this happened in any of the samples in Dr. Ketchum's study because there is certainly no evidence of fraud or hoax in any of the samples but she will have to be able to show that due scientific dilligence was exercised in each of the samples she wishes to use in her study. I think that there has been enough cases where science has been fooled (especially by scientists themselves) to justify a very thorough examination of all the evidence used in any study not to mention one that would be so important and exciting as this.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Transformer

[Guest]

If the DNA is unique, and contains the same sequence, and variants through out multiple samples, then that in itself will prove there is a unique something out there, no matter where the samples came from. You cant manufacture new, and unique DNA to trick science. The theory of people sending in modern human DNA, that is not in the genbank yet,to fool the scientific community is ridiculous at best.

[southernyahoo]

No, although I can see where you might think that. I am only saying that I, an admitted layman in the science world, would demand one very serious vet of the circumstances generating the sample before I could accept the sample as evidence. Please tell me that science can read the truth from the data alone.

I think science can read the truth from the data. Modern human Contamination theoreticly can't account for significantly diverged sequences that both repeat and are abesent in positive and negative controls. Instead of demanding flawless collection and wishing to believe there was no way they could be contaminated (which you wouldn't be able to tell) it is better to understand the processes in which contamination is detected and eliminated as a possible source.

http://www.promega.com/~/media/Files/Resources/Profiles%20In%20DNA/802/Identifying%20and%20Preventing%20DNA%20Contamination%20in%20a%20DNA%20Typing%20Laboratory.ashx

[Guest RayG]

The wear pattern on Giganto teeth suggest an omnivorous diet, as has been noted several times, similar to that of the chimpanzee (who is also omnivorus, not herbivorous as commonly believed).

Do you have a source for that Mulder? The wiki page makes no mention of Giganto being an omnivore, nor does the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 135, Issue 1, pages 85-91, January 2008. The journal says this:

"The combination of evenly distributed occlusal enamel and relatively short dentine horns in G. blacki results in a flat and low-cusped occlusal surface suitable to grinding tough or fibrous food objects. This suite of molar morphologies is also found to varying degrees in Pongo and Sivapithecus, but not in African apes and humans, and may be diagnostic of subfamily Ponginae."

(my bolding)

RayG

[Guest parnassus]

If the DNA is unique, and contains the same sequence, and variants through out multiple samples, then that in itself will prove there is a unique something out there, no matter where the samples came from. You cant manufacture new, and unique DNA to trick science. The theory of people sending in modern human DNA, that is not in the genbank yet,to fool the scientific community is ridiculous at best.

John,

why would you say that? that is precisely the best strategy that doesn't require non-modern human DNA;

1) Go to an isolated tribal reservation,

2) obtain samples from 10 or 20 genetically related family members (they will not be in GenBank), and

3) take (or mail to friends) the samples to different parts of the country

4) then submit them from different parts of the country.

So the lab reports closely related "strange" DNA ie not in GenBank from all across the country. DNA statistical analysis assumes randomness. By this "distribution scheme', Voila. you make it seem impossible for this to have occurred randomly. Which, of course, it didn't. Ha ha. Randomness was the entire basis for Richard Stubstad's argument. All you have to do is fake the distribution.

I suggested this over a year ago.

Why is it ridiculous? It's simple, and Is it more ridiculous than the Georgia boys? This is how you make modern human DNA seem "special." No one has any primate DNA except modern human. So if you want to have something noteworthy, you have to make it special. Distribution is the only way.

Of course, no real primatologist is going to buy it, but some third rate journal will publish it, I promise you that.

p.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Sounds like a very well thought out, coordinated, complex, and devious hoax conspiracy....

[Guest Particle Noun]

Parnassus,

You've put forth this theory at least twice now, but there is a huge hole in it which I can't imagine you are ignorant of, so I'd like you to flesh out your hoax theory to explain how the following would work in that scenario:

If there was common variation found in all or most of the samples, identifying them as related, then it would seemingly have to come from a single large family group, as you indicate. This means that someone would collect all of those samples, and send them in from around the country, to give the illusion of geographical distribution. The only way I can see that being effective is if the samples are anonymous.

Because we know there are many known individuals and groups who have sent in samples. Olympic project, our own SouthernYahoo (right? maybe I'm thinking of someone else), Smeja, etc. So either each of those individuals, assuming their samples share this commonality we are anticipating with your Modern Human DNA, is in on the hoax, or Dr. Ketchum took those samples and replaced them with her own set of samples collected in the way you postulated to hoax the whole thing (in which case proper distribution isn't necessary, since it would just be swapping out the real samples sent with the ones she'd collected herself). Then there is the issue of the hair morphologist who was brought on the team to study the hair samples, each of which would also have to have been hoaxed I assume.

So, for me, the only way this theory would hold water would be if you seriously believe that either of those two scenarios is possible. To me, that strains credulity, and is about as germane as claiming Bigfoot is a mistaken sighting of the planet Venus.

It is not an impossible scenario, but it does rely on complete and utter outright hoaxing on a scale we haven't yet uncovered in the Bigfoot world (not the yet uncovered qualification).

Edited May 21, 2012 by Particle Noun

[Guest]

No to mention in order for them to be "Bigfoot" or, any unknown, they would have to have mutations you would not see in the regular Human stock. Specific genes lead to specific mutations. To deliberately simplify the concept into something that could be considered a hoax, or hoaxed, is ridiculous. You must really think Dr Ketchum and the people she works with do not know anything about genes,DNA, etc.

Is that your example of think like a hoaxer Parn?

Edited May 21, 2012 by JohnC

[indiefoot]

parnassus,

Are you seriously suggesting that Southernyahoo, Derrick Randalls, Adrian Erickson, and all of the other sample prividers are either unaware of, or even more remarkable, aware of this conspiricy? Which one of your tribal members volunteered to donate the pound of flesh?

Edited May 21, 2012 by indiefoot