Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

Guest gerrykleier

I would like to add.....some of us who have spent our entire life in the woods saw sign and never really knew it was BF until much later. I had heard things, saw things and my mind's eye WRONGLY associated it with a "must be" species. Sightings and tracks finally slapped me in the face like a bucket of ice water. My wife had a sighting just this weekend as a matter if fact.

KB

The last time I talked to an experienced Hunter (mostly Sierra Nevadas) about Bigfoot, he indicated that he had experienced a number of incidents we associate with Bigfoot. He was aware of the connection because of my interest and because his kids love FINDING BIGFOOT. He wrote them off as 'mysteries of the woods', though he admitted if BF was hown to exist he would probably look at them in a different light. But for now, he simply dismisses them.

GK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Transformer

You keep saying this, but what do you base this opinion on? Any particular knowledge about phylogenetic classification that you would like to share?

Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice?

Edited by Transformer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment.

Has anybody asked Dr. Henry Gee if he knows or has spoken to Robert Lindsay? Who verified this tete a tete?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shoot1

The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment.

If you check out Ketchums Twitter account you will see that NatGeo and Nature are on her list. I am wondering if there will not be a coordinated article publication campaign when the paper is published, covering the topic from several angles at once. Is there any reason she could not have released a preview of the paper or its findings under a NDA, so that the editors have some advance knowledge of the subject in order to prepare feature stories?

Edited by shoot1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice?

The discovery of any hominid would be a huge (regardless of height and hair). That said, I think most people would logically deduce there's likely something to those thousands of sightings if a DNA study does in fact find something unusual in samples recovered from "squatchy" places.

I think it's clear they have more than just DNA though. For example, the Sierra shooting sample is covered with hair. There are rumors of a bone as well. Who knows what else they have.

Edited by slimwitless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter O.

If you check out Ketchums Twitter account you will see that NatGeo and Nature are on her list.

You can tweet to Nature? I hope the study is longer than 160 characters. ;)

Edited by Peter O.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice?

You can determine that the specimen comes from an uncatalogued hominin and a member of a particular genus and that it was hairy since the specimens (most of them) are hair. If you have sufficient divergence and collaboration across the specimens you would have a new species or hybrids that have never been sequenced before. If you combine that with photo's and video footage taken from the same areas you can definately describe the creature, even if it is unethical to actually put a complete body on the table. If it is from the genus homo then there are boundries that have to be respected. We simply don't commit homicide for the sake of science. If bigfooters are left to find a new hominin in our midst then it will be bigfoot , period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shoot1

You can tweet to Nature? I hope the study is longer than 160 characters. ;)

Funny. She only follows nine twitter accounts, assuming this is actually her account, so I felt that the fact she follows those two magazines in particular is relevant. When a paper is submitted to Nature the Editor decides who will conduct the peer review. It can go through several cycles of review and can include supplementary reference papers. National Geographic is heavily involved in wildlife conservation and has sponsored many expeditions and documentaries. She also has the Jane Goodall Institute on her list, for whatever that's worth. I don't have much to go on, but my bet is it's going to published in Nature.

orig_17966_047_resized_smaller_reasonably_small.jpg

Dr. Melba Ketchum

@DrMelbaKetchum

Scientist, Forensics and Hominid Research

Nacogdoches. Texas ·

45]

science_square_normal.jpg

Science and space news from Writers Write's Science, Space & Robots.

nt5vbs9zvx01bqhkyj5r_normal.pngUSGS †@USGS

Earth science knowledge is just a tweet away. Tweets do not = endorsement:http://on.doi.gov/pgwu0Y

NEW_SCI_LOGO_Twitter_Icon_black_normal.jpgScience Channel †@ScienceChannel

Thought-provoking updates, insider news and more from Science...show your#nerdtweet pride!

sn_badge_BR_normal.pngScience News †@ScienceNewsOrg

Covering important and emerging research in all fields of science. Publisher@society4science. Moderator @pwthornton. See also @sciencenewskids.

ng_rectangle_normal.jpgNational Geographic †@NatGeo

Since 1888, we've traveled the Earth, sharing its amazing stories with new generations. Official Twitter account of National Geographic.

Twitter-Icon-JGI_normal.jpgJaneGoodallInstitute †@JaneGoodallInst

Find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/theJGI and follow our youth program @RootsAndShoots.

nature-header.ed_normal.pngNature News&Comment †@NatureNews

The latest science news and opinion from@NatureMagazine. Winner Best Twitter, Online Media Awards 2011, commended in 2012 and Shorty Award for science, 2012.

hamish_a_0311_226x170_normal.jpgNASAHurricane †@NASAHurricane

NASA's Hurricane Web Page is one of the ONLY resources that provides data on ALL tropical cyclones around the world in one place!

twcilogo_blue_300_normal.pngThe Weather Channel †@weatherchannel

Daily weather news, tidbits, video and alerts from The Weather Channel.

Edited by shoot1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice?

Load of tripe!

DNA doesn't magically manifest itself. It comes from a critter. You may not be able to 100% describe the looks of the critter, but you can genetically establish it's phylogienic niche as being so many % like one thing, so many % like another.

The ultimate point is that unique genetics = unique critter and is 100% proof that said critter exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest poignant

I foresee possible cloning and implantation in higher primates - as well as highly paid individuals tasked to carry viable zygotes. :P

Short of a body, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

@poignant That sounds like a good, practical way of getting a Bigfoot. The DNA exists so why not lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment.

I'm pretty sure you know exactly what they discussed because I think you are one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...