Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

Yes I know that. When I was in Dallas, I worked for an Attorney who's wife is a horse breeder. I sent many "packages" to a lab near Houston and received many letters back - It wouldn't shock me if it was her lab. Ketchum (if her credentials hold up) is in a VERY lucrative business - and she would be silly to simply walk away from it.

Moving her offices to a larger city is actually a smart move. It will give her more access to resources.

IF her move - disrupts her "non bigfoot clients" - she will be shut down. I sure wouldn't mess with Texans.. LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the NDAs between the company and the submitters of the samples or Ms. Ketchum personally and the submitters?

Yes, ...LOL jk. ......... They are between Dr. Ketchum and the submitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest thermalman

Nothing says business owners' can't reorganize their businesses. I've done it and will keep doing it as long as profitable avenues present themselves. Incorporating higher profit margins and deleting money losing ventures is all about business streamlining. Gotta go with the flow (some challenges happen overnight and require immediate adjustments), which includes.....economy, supply & demand, cost and profit fluctuations, tax implecations, etc., in order to stay in business. :money: It's really no else's business how a "private enterprise" operates, now is it? A business owner can spend or make $100k in one phone call!

Edited by thermalman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need some help moving those goalposts?

I can't speak for others but my goal posts were always a body (or piece of). It is what is always needed for scientific documentation of a species. DNA evidence IS great evidence, never said it wasn't. It's a great thing for people who have not witnessed this animal and need a reason to keep looking or posting on a forum. I don't want a reason to believe, I want undeniable proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note you didn't bother with my challenge.

You say DNA is not a "part of a body". DNA comes from genetic material, genetic material comes from a body. DNA is just a really really small body part, same as a finger, etc.

Finding blood tested out as belonging to a particular human at a crime scene would be accepted as proof that a particular human was at that crime scene. Logically therefore finding blood (or hairs, tissues, etc) testing out as belonging to an unknown primate is proof OF an unknown primate.

As I asked before: where else would such an unknown sample come from? A trout? A fruit tree? The Easter Bunny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not feeling concerned at all. I know result of the tests on my sample, & that's all I ever wanted anyway.

Sasfooty, does your NDA prohibit you from sending samples to Sykes or other Bigfoot DNA studies?

I remember reading where some researchers had submitted samples to Ketchum and to Sykes. Obviously, it would not have been the exact same sample but I would venture to guess they were similar and perhaps from the same source.

The state of Texas requires business owners to pay franchise taxes until the business sends in a form, advising that the business is no longer operational. Regardless, any franchise, property or sales tax must be paid through the date that the business states as their last day of being in operation. It's possible that Ketchum has done this and the web site has not updated the information.

If she's selling the service side of her business and opening a new office in a larger city, then that info should be available online. Of course, she may have the business registered under a different name or formed an LLC that will act as the majority partner or shareholder, depending on the exact legal structure. Regardless, her name would have to be linked with an existing or newly registered entity. If the entity was formed out of state, such as Delaware, it would make it very hard to track.

Either way, something should surface soon enough.

Edited by Cisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note you didn't bother with my challenge.

You say DNA is not a "part of a body". DNA comes from genetic material, genetic material comes from a body. DNA is just a really really small body part, same as a finger, etc.

Finding blood tested out as belonging to a particular human at a crime scene would be accepted as proof that a particular human was at that crime scene. Logically therefore finding blood (or hairs, tissues, etc) testing out as belonging to an unknown primate is proof OF an unknown primate.

As I asked before: where else would such an unknown sample come from? A trout? A fruit tree? The Easter Bunny?

If a sample comes up "unknown primate" then that is what is is.

BUT, does unknown primate mean a Bigfoot/Sasquatch? No, it does not. They have discovered new previously unknown primates in the last few years (such as the Billy ape) that do not fit the description of Bigfoot and are not Bigfoot. So, how is "unknown primate" proof of Bigfoot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest thermalman

Bigfoots-R-Us?

Seriously? If that's really the name, then it would seem she has to have something on the books related to the field in order to specialize with that name, and it's just a matter of time before everyone knows? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Wow Kitakaze and Tontar are mentioned by BFF user name as connected to the Elbe trackway too. Too much drama at once."

Could have been avoided if Skeptics weren't so desperate to play "gotcha" that they started hoaxing.

All it means is that it is a very small community where people frequent a broad number of forums and blogs and voice their opinions in different ways, with different levels of anonymity. It's also an indication of the continual desire to draw conclusions where there is too little evidence to support a conclusion. That's pretty general, of course, but specific to this thread, I'm still happy to wait and see how it all shakes out, without throwing in the daily pro or con argument about it. Nothing new is nothing new, so not a lot to discuss about it. Until Sykes gets his study out, or until Ketchum gets hers out, either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I would pass this along cause there is a huge misconception about Ketchum's place closing down. I can tell you that it hasnt closed but is in the process of moving to a new location. I was told this direct from Melba. So dont rush to judgement so quick and sometimes its as simple as asking a question to the right person.

Edited by Chad Triplett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a sample comes up "unknown primate" then that is what is is.

BUT, does unknown primate mean a Bigfoot/Sasquatch? No, it does not. They have discovered new previously unknown primates in the last few years (such as the Billy ape) that do not fit the description of Bigfoot and are not Bigfoot. So, how is "unknown primate" proof of Bigfoot?

John, with sufficient DNA and adequate analysis, the specimen can be placed on the phylogenetic tree of life. This is enough to tell you if it is a great ape, and what it's closest genus or species is. Finding a new hominid/ hominin in this class would not be easily confused with a new monkey, or lower primate. Explaining a finding like this in the USA without invoking the bigfoot hypothesis would be like ingnoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Satisticly, it can be proven to be there. Then you also have what morphology is associated with the samples.

That is as much as one can expect from a DNA project. If that won't be enough there's always the prokill fan clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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