Jump to content
Guest

The Ketchum Report

Recommended Posts

southernyahoo

Dude, this is not an explanation for anything that anyone is doing now, that I know of. This is just the best way to try to hoax a modern human bigfoot. Of course it wouldn't explain a new hominin. But as far as I know, no one HAS a new hominin DNA.

As far as you know Parn? All you know is what other people have said.

Ok, so you admit that your theory is irrelevant to the Ketchum study, but for some reason you think the conclusion is HSS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
not referring to the steak; that can't be faked. However, the result can be, and is being, concealed. I think that Meldrum and Sykes are out to 'bust" it. Meldrum has very clearly indicated he isn't on board with the modern human theory of bigfoot, which is what seems to be coming out of the Ketchum/Paulides camps. I am getting the idea that Meldrum has been given a piece of the steak, and IF SO, I imagine the results will come very quickly; say, by July, he will put it in the Relict Hominoid Inquiry (it's not publishable anywhere else) and it will be a common animal. Oops, my crystal ball went dark again. Sorry, no more predictions til I get the equilibrator coil replaced.

Meldrum stated not too long ago (at the Richland, WA conference) that he is aware alot of people put him in the "ape" camp. He also stated he is not/will not be biased if evidence comes back as some form of Homo or human (dear lord don't get me caught up in a war of those words - I mean it!!!). He is one of the few true scientists associated with this field so he holds some credence. He may come up or be associated with evidence based on some of this supposed "steak" but maybe not. Maybe he just wants to sell books and replica plaster casts of footprints. He does have a fabulous and informative presentation. He's a great speaker!

We should start a thread re your crystal ball. It seems to be very tempermental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darrell

Who said if this is the basket you put all your eggs into, you need to find a new chicken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

tell me the holes.

Left temporal lobe

post-1142-0-48854300-1337653696_thumb.jp

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RayG

It must have come out before his book because he mentions it IN his book.

Here's a link off the top of a google search

http://www.mendeley....ithecus-blacki/

The above link compares giganto tooth wear paterns to those of chimps (pan troglodytes) who are confirmed omnivores that hunt and eat animals as well as plants.

Not that it matters really. Omnivorism is well established as an ape/monkey trait. And the evidence is that BF is omnivorous based on the reports of the types of food being gathered and consumed.

No, the link you provided is to information dated 1994. The journal I referred to was the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 135, Issue 1, pages 85-91, January 2008. Article was first published online 16 OCT 2007

LMS came out in 2006 so he could not have mentioned those journal conclusions in the book.

You did read the bit of the abstract I included, right? Here's the entire abstract:

"Absolutely thick molar enamel is consistent with large body size estimates and dietary inferences about Gigantopithecus blacki, which focus on tough or fibrous vegetation. In this study, 10 G. blacki molars demonstrating various stages of attrition were imaged using high-resolution microtomography. Three-dimensional average enamel thickness and relative enamel thickness measurements were recorded on the least worn molars within the sample (n = 2). Seven molars were also virtually sectioned through the mesial cusps and two-dimensional enamel thickness and dentine horn height measurements were recorded. Gigantopithecus has the thickest enamel of any fossil or extant primate in terms of absolute thickness. Relative (size-scaled) measures of enamel thickness, however, support a thick characterization (i.e., not “hyper-thickâ€); G. blacki relative enamel thickness overlaps slightly with Pongo and completely with Homo. Gigantopithecus blacki dentine horns are relatively short, similar to (but shorter than) those of Pongo, which in turn are shorter than those of humans and African apes. Gigantopithecus blacki molar enamel (and to a lesser extent, that of Pongo pygmaeus) is distributed relatively evenly across the occlusal surface compared with the more complex distribution of enamel thickness in Homo sapiens. 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."

Once again, my bolding.

If microtomographic examination of the teeth show they are not morphologically similar to apes and humans, we should not be inferring they are.

RayG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

For the record, I don't buy a hoax conspiracy scenario nor a contamination scenario. My concern with the samples is more a concern that the data derived from the samples is just too thin to resolve doubt.

I am surmising that the strength of the DNA data would influence the publication timeline for the study? The stronger the evidence, the sooner the publication. The weaker the evidence, the more delayed. Is that a fair assumption or is that conceptually flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think its backwards, the stronger the evidence, the more people get involved, the larger the ramifications, the more delays as they discuss where to go with it all. As I have said before, this is not a new purple crab, or sub species of crayfish we are talking about here.

Just my thoughts on it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

There is a another possibility however, that the study is flawed and this could have been pointed out during peer review; leaving the authors scrambling to salvage it somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AaronD
Moderator

Gigantor, Seriously????? LOL, I agree, most likely the case actually. Or someone just dropped the ball somewhere in the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Imagine the following....

So there may be several attorneys involved who are scrambling and trying to put their respective clients in the best possible legal position.

Imagine The Ketchum Report including Erickson Project videos that are widely thought to be hoaxed, albeit elaborately done, but the *EP* has bought in and is included in the study.

Imagine the DNA from the Smeja/Sierra Shooting incident being a party to the study as well.

Dunno, makes sense to me that the efforts to converge those, with attorneys representing each party might be a problem and present a delay.

Especially if trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

For the record, I don't buy a hoax conspiracy scenario nor a contamination scenario. My concern with the samples is more a concern that the data derived from the samples is just too thin to resolve doubt.

Certainly plausible I guess. Especially if there is any measure of ambiguity in the results and efforts to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Dunno, only a few things add up and make sense now.

This is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

For the record, I don't buy a hoax conspiracy scenario nor a contamination scenario. My concern with the samples is more a concern that the data derived from the samples is just too thin to resolve doubt.

I am surmising that the strength of the DNA data would influence the publication timeline for the study? The stronger the evidence, the sooner the publication. The weaker the evidence, the more delayed. Is that a fair assumption or is that conceptually flawed?

I think what could happen is that , the more the reviewers ask for in terms of data, the more they have to turn around and review. More data = more sequencing multiplied by the number of samples etc etc. It would paint the picture that the data was getting stronger and stronger. Thin data that got thiner wouldn't make sense for a delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JDL

Given all the background activity along legal and economic lines the Ketchum Study seems to be spawning, it's hard to believe that there's nothing there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thepattywagon

I truly don't understand how a video, whose authenticity is questionable, could be entered as a part of this particular study. If it has been viewed by enough reputed experts and there are questions remaining, wouldn't its inclusion just muddy things further?

Personally, it wouldn't matter how many people testified that a particular 'sample' submitted for DNA analysis was attributable to an alleged creature on a video, if that video was raising red flags.

Of course, not having seen the EP vids, I am only going by what I read on these boards as to how convincing they may or may not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...