The Ketchum Report

[Guest StankApe]

RRS-

I reckon that the response would be that they know where the specimens were taken from (some of them anyway) and since they were taken from Bigfoot that the results "prove" Bigfoot. Howeverm scientifically, the most they could prove is unknown primate/hominid...etc Cuz without an Bigfoot to compare the results with, you can't actually prove that it IS Bigfoot.

However, unknown ape would be a good start on getting the big feller studied properly if this is what the actual DNA results show.

[Guest slimwitless]

Folks like James Randi know a thing or two about fooling people, and Randi claims that the hypereducated are among the easiest to fool. Dr. Ketchum's susceptibility to a ruse could actually be positively correlated with her intelligence.

Or it could just mean she is in over head as far as skill level is concerned, I would think so if they required her to sequence the entire genome. I'm hoping the rumor is true that she referred the samples out for sequencing.

That's exactly why we have the peer review process.

As far as the rumor, I heard some time ago she was asked to sequence the entire genome at great expense (Wally's no doubt). I'm sure she had to farm that out (along with much of the other sequencing).

[Guest mitchw]

The recent TBRC expedition wherein they think they clipped a bigfoot with a shotgun argues that a specimen can be taken. Killing a bigfoot is outrageous to some people, but it ends the debate cold. If as StankApe and others argue, Ketchum can only demonstrate an unknown hominid, then the logic will turn to procuring a specimen.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

The recent TBRC expedition wherein they think they clipped a bigfoot with a shotgun argues that a specimen can be taken. Killing a bigfoot is outrageous to some people, but it ends the debate cold. If as StankApe and others argue, Ketchum can only demonstrate an unknown hominid, then the logic will turn to procuring a specimen.

Knowing human nature, if BF is proven the real deal, ain't nothing going to stop them from being killed.

Tim

[Guest]

Folks like James Randi know a thing or two about fooling people, and Randi claims that the hypereducated are among the easiest to fool. Dr. Ketchum's susceptibility to a ruse could actually be positively correlated with her intelligence.

Well, that's explains why I've been fooled so often.

[TimB]

Richard,

Thanks for the info.

I tend to agree with your admonitions to Dr. Ketchum; however, I must say that your concepts of the significance of SNPs, of the contents of GenBank, and of modern human mtDNA, and your ideas about hybrids could also use some "collaboration." If she shares these concepts I doubt very much that she has what she (and you) thinks she has, as far as evidence (or a viable paper) is concerned.

While I don't have much faith in him otherwise, I would suggest that when Moneymaker says "no testable hypothesis," that sounds like a quote. It may well be a real criticism of the paper. The hypothesis being: bigfoot and human DNA are indistinguishable. Now, that would be fine if you'd give up all these ideas about an 8 ft 500 lb monster covered with hair that runs 30 mph on two or four legs and enormous but inconsistent feet that have midtarsal breaks, eats pine bark, has glowing eyes, no neck, conical head, no fire, tools, clothing, blah blah. It would be fine if you were just saying that bigfoot is just a legend and a bunch of human hoaxers and mistaken identity. Then it would be modern human DNA from modern humans mistaken for/hoaxing bigfoot. Fine. But you're not. You have to have a bigfoot monster.

if the paper says, in effect: "here is all this modern human DNA, it's mostly all different, some of it wasn't in GenBank, we think it was a bunch of bigfoots because of that and because there were some people out there who collected the specimens who thought it was from bigfoot." Then, to my way of thinking, that would fit with the "no testable hypothesis" criticism. In the first place, GenBank doesn't have all the human SNPs. And more importantly: You can't test the hypothesis that bigfoot has modern human DNA (unless you have a bigfoot on a table or in a cage to verify that the specimen did come from a bigfoot).

To any reasonable person, modern human DNA comes from modern humans, and the phenotype of the bigfoot we all know and love is not a modern human. And you can't credibly assert that the DNA in your study, while apparently modern human, would yield important and consistent bigfoot differences from modern humans if only we, in the future, just look long and hard enough. Am I making myself clear? You can't just say red is blue, and exclude the usual ways of distinguishing red from blue because you don't think they are good enough, and substitute the judgment of a bunch of blind people for the usual tests of color. But that is what, it seems to me, you are asking reviewers to approve. You want the reviewers to believe that red is blue based on the speculations of a bigfoot believer who found a broken bloody pipe with a dead skunk nearby.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I obviously don't have all the data. You talk like you've read the paper. Show me where I'm wrong.

This is an extremely well written opinion piece. I look forward to the day you can work through the documentation to support your hypothesis.

Tim B.

[Guest]

Richard,

if the paper says, in effect: "here is all this modern human DNA, it's mostly all different, some of it wasn't in GenBank, we think it was a bunch of bigfoots because of that and because there were some people out there who collected the specimens who thought it was from bigfoot." Then, to my way of thinking, that would fit with the "no testable hypothesis" criticism. In the first place, GenBank doesn't have all the human SNPs. And more importantly: You can't test the hypothesis that bigfoot has modern human DNA (unless you have a bigfoot on a table or in a cage to verify that the specimen did come from a bigfoot).

To any reasonable person, modern human DNA comes from modern humans, and the phenotype of the bigfoot we all know and love is not a modern human. And you can't credibly assert that the DNA in your study, while apparently modern human, would yield important and consistent bigfoot differences from modern humans if only we, in the future, just look long and hard enough. Am I making myself clear? You can't just say red is blue, and exclude the usual ways of distinguishing red from blue because you don't think they are good enough, and substitute the judgment of a bunch of blind people for the usual tests of color. But that is what, it seems to me, you are asking reviewers to approve. You want the reviewers to believe that red is blue based on the speculations of a bigfoot believer who found a broken bloody pipe with a dead skunk nearby.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I obviously don't have all the data. You talk like you've read the paper. Show me where I'm wrong.

Your analysis/argument is dead on. You cannot prove that an unidentified specimen is a bf by claiming that it is modern human dna. It is unidentified human dna -- nothing more or nothing less. My opinion is that this is an attempt to up the value of video footage by saying samples from the "animal" in the video has been the subject of a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal. "a study of dna published in Nature suggests that the subject in the video is a bf. For the low price of $39.99 you can be one of the first people to see this video.

[Guest]

Your analysis/argument is dead on. You cannot prove that an unidentified specimen is a bf by claiming that it is modern human dna. It is unidentified human dna -- nothing more or nothing less. My opinion is that this is an attempt to up the value of video footage by saying samples from the "animal" in the video has been the subject of a peer reviewed study in a reputable journal. "a study of dna published in Nature suggests that the subject in the video is a bf. For the low price of $39.99 you can be one of the first people to see this video.

Why would anyone besides Adrian Erickson care about increasing the value of the video footage when they make zero profits from it? They don't have any rights to the video at all.

[southernyahoo]

the phenotype of the bigfoot we all know and love is not a modern human.

Unless the phenotype includes the PGF , then it's Hieronumsicus robustus.

The recent TBRC expedition wherein they think they clipped a bigfoot with a shotgun argues that a specimen can be taken. Killing a bigfoot is outrageous to some people, but it ends the debate cold. If as StankApe and others argue, Ketchum can only demonstrate an unknown hominid, then the logic will turn to procuring a specimen.

I would think that if "unknown hominid" is demonstrated then logic would turn to the term homocide, and the fact that there is no other reported unknown hominid extant other than bigfoot. Game over, no body needed , nor could it be ethicly taken.

[bipedalist]

Huzzah! Plus One.

[Guest mitchw]

...nor could it be ethicly taken.

You're right. How about a tranquilizer dart?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

...nor could it be ethicly taken.

You're right. How about a tranquilizer dart?

Need someone with a license, but there is the question of getting close enough to use it, that has proven to be most difficult.

I guess if BF is proven then some zoos or others will throw out some $ and try to capture one.

Tim

[southernyahoo]

...nor could it be ethicly taken.

You're right. How about a tranquilizer dart?

Still too barbaric for me personally.

[Guest slimwitless]

Your analysis/argument is dead on.

Unfortunately it lacks a testable hypothesis.

[Guest vilnoori]

Actually the premise that sasquatches have modern human DNA IS a testable hypothesis, but to test it you WOULD have to obtain a fresh specimen to complete the logic--"this sample comes from this creature, this sample is human, therefore this creature (no matter how hairy, big, apelike or whatever) IS HUMAN." But no one said doing the test would be easy. Neither was it easy to test some of Einstein's hypotheses, which when tested years later, turned out to be excellent.

If sasquatches were proven to have modern human DNA, then they would be modern humans, no matter what they look like. We would have to shift our definition of those words, and create two different species names for modern humans. Currently there is only one. There are many archaic humans, though. Maybe one of the archaic humans is actually a modern human that has survived to the present time, and we just have to somehow prove it. I think it would take not only a DNA sample, and a recent part of a body, but also a good look at the bone structure, since many archaic humans were identified as such not by DNA data but by bone morphology. In other words what you need is a recent skeleton of a BF to compare with. Not only would such a skeleton have to be proven to have come from a bigfoot (by provenance) but you would also have to prove it was recent, as in, not old and simply well preserved. While most archaic human bones are fossilized, some have been recent enough to actually be real bones. The Liang Bua cave remains of Homo floresiensis (Hobbit man) were actual bones, though very very fragile. I think the age they gave was 12 to 18 thousand years old. That actually adds H. floresiensis to the "modern human" category as well, in a sense, though not currently surviving ones--that we know of.

Edited December 8, 2011 by vilnoori