The Ketchum Report

[Guest Particle Noun]

Well, and if you are going into an area known to have Grizzlies, even if you've never seen them, you are going to be a little extra cautious/curious, right? So if you go into an area in which you now know has Bigfoot, won't you be a little more cautious/curious?

I'm not a hunter, though, so I defer to the experience of those who are.

[Cotter]

SY - I read that statement as a bit of a semantic one.

OF COURSE DNA from an unknown hominid would not indicate a Sasquatch, only an unknown homonid.

Since we have no Sasquatch DNA to compare to. That, and they may change the name so it would no longer be Sasquatch.

Once the study is out, the arguments will shift to other, even more semantical issues.

[Guest slimwitless]

The only real reference was that the unnamed scientist was well recognized in the field and is on staff at a major university, and that he can't reveal the name.

Todd Disotell? That would be interesting.

Does anyone know if he's commented publicly on the Sykes study?

[Drew]

Well, and if you are going into an area known to have Grizzlies, even if you've never seen them, you are going to be a little extra cautious/curious, right? So if you go into an area in which you now know has Bigfoot, won't you be a little more cautious/curious?

I'm not a hunter, though, so I defer to the experience of those who are.

No.

A hunter would be more cautious in an area known to have Grizzlies. Bigfoot is found everywhere, that would be like being afraid of air.

[kbhunter]

Drew, your right. There are areas with a denser population, but they inhabit most states.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I'd like to clear up some misinformation

Parn,

that is a gross distortion of what Stubstad has posted. He has said at great length that the mitochondrial DNA is within normal human range, but right at the extreme (in other words, atypical/ rare). However, the Nuclear DNA is outside the range of any known modern human on the planet (my words....read his below). Therefore, the animal that carries this is NOT a modern human. You keep repeating that same fallacy and misrepresentation, so to try to obviate the possibility of you doing this again, here is his explanation is his words, not yours: (Apologies to the mods if I have done something wrong in clipping this in here)

• 
  
  • Richard Stubstad
    March 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM
    That’s OK, Robert, I can answer the question unequivocally. Whether SeesDifferent believes me or not is another matter. That’s his/her issue, not mine.
    All three mito sequences WERE within modern human ranges — but just barely at both ends of the spectrum, so to speak. When one “connects the mito dots†and doesn’t assume each sequence is unrelated to the next, one COULD be lead to believe these three were modern humans, albeit from VERY strange and rare haplotypes.
    It was the nuclear MC1R DNA sequences that sealed the deal. None were within human ranges. Each of the three had a particular mutation that no human on earth has been shown to have.
    This is exactly the same result that was found for Neanderthal within MC1R, but Neanderthal’s mutation site was different from the three purported sasquatch mutation sites.
    Based on this, all three MC1R sequences were not within known modern human ranges. So either sasquatch is a hoax and Neanderthals were hoaxes, or both subspecies are the real deal.
    Put that in your pipe and smoke it for awhile.
    Richard
    

I hope you'll now adjust your position regarding Stubstat's evaluation of the data . To declare, as you often do, that Stubstad says "sasquatch = modern human" is clearly, clearly erroneous.

Mike

The Nuclear DNA won't determine whether they are classified as human or not. When the mito DNA is within modern human range and the nuclear isn't, it tells us they are humans that have gone through a lot of mutations. Neanderthal mtDNA is outside of modern human range, yet they are still considered human. So, Sasquatch are human, except they have gone through many mutations. They will be Homo something

[Guest]

^Which ironically is the conclusion Heuvelman came to over 30 years ago when he named Homo Pongides (sp?) after examining the Minnesota Iceman.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Todd Disotell? That would be interesting.

Does anyone know if he's commented publicly on the Sykes study?

Conjecture.

Although his Curriculum Vitae is impressive. No google search linking Disotell to Sykes other than recent samples sent for DNA results from purported Orang Pendek samples.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/expedition-reports/crypto-analysis-orang-pendek/

His CV notes that he peer reviews for a number of major publications that would be considered as journal candidates for the Ketchum Report.

[southernyahoo]

OF COURSE DNA from an unknown hominid would not indicate a Sasquatch, only an unknown homonid.

Since we have no Sasquatch DNA to compare to. That, and they may change the name so it would no longer be Sasquatch.

Once the study is out, the arguments will shift to other, even more semantical issues.

Semantical arguments, yeah, we've seen that already. An extant unknown hominoid would make for a great explanation of this phenomenon, then we can name it homo squatchensis , just because we can.

Edit. BTW there was a new Ox discovered with DNA recently, interesting theories were involved until DNA proved or disproved them.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Giant-Jungle-Ox-Proven-to-be-Real-Species-67835.shtml

Edited July 20, 2012 by southernyahoo

[yowiie]

Todd Disotell? That would be interesting.

Does anyone know if he's commented publicly on the Sykes study?

Why do you ask?

[Guest Tontar]

The Nuclear DNA won't determine whether they are classified as human or not. When the mito DNA is within modern human range and the nuclear isn't, it tells us they are humans that have gone through a lot of mutations. Neanderthal mtDNA is outside of modern human range, yet they are still considered human. So, Sasquatch are human, except they have gone through many mutations. They will be Homo something

Humans that have gone through a lot of mutations. Interesting. Care to elaborate on what that might actually mean? For example, would they be humans that have gone through mutations, or would we be the human form that has undergone mutations? Were they like us, then mutated away from us, or were we like them and we mutated away form them to become the modern, hairless, more analytically advanced form or human.

I'm not sure that I understand how the word mutation is being used. Mutation normally means that something has changed form its original form. If you say that sasquatch is a human that has undergone mutations, then you'd be saying they were a different form of human originally, then mutated into something different from what it was. Is that how we are to see sasquatches? They are hairy, and live wild, much more like animals. More like a natural creature would. We're the odd ducks here, no hair, having mostly evolved away from the ability to live wild without a lot of artificial means. Even our most primitive tribal forms make shelters, cook with fire, make tools, wear clothes, modify their environment to suit their needs. None like completely wild, feeding on raw diets, wearing no clothes, being fully coated with hair.

So compared to most other animals on earth, we're the strange ones. Maybe the difference between this sasquatch DNA and ours is not that they are mutated humans, but rather that we are.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Humans that split off at one point and underwent many mutations. The nuclear dna reflects how close they are to us from a physical perspective.

Edited July 20, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Midnight Owl]

I have several relatives who have spent much more time than I in the woods hunting and fishing in remote wilderness areas. They have never heard or seen anything out of the normal concerning wildlife. On the other hand, my wife has two first cousins that have had visual Bigfoot encounters while armed and hunting on the west coast and in Montana. Two people in two areas miles apart and in different years in time.

I have no idea why some do and some don't. I do know the Bigfoot will afford a wide path to anyone openly packing a long rifle. It may be nothing more than pure chance and the odds. I don't think anyone has a good answer and it won't change anytime soon.....

[Guest]

I'd like to clear up some misinformation

The Nuclear DNA won't determine whether they are classified as human or not. When the mito DNA is within modern human range and the nuclear isn't, it tells us they are humans that have gone through a lot of mutations. Neanderthal mtDNA is outside of modern human range, yet they are still considered human. So, Sasquatch are human, except they have gone through many mutations. They will be Homo something

If the results come back with 48 chromosomes and or a suite of intact genes that are only found with the great apes, then the human angle will be thrown out.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Dr. Ketchum would have known that before she registered feralhumanproject.info lol