Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

My faith lies in the reference labs she sent the samples out to, I hope they confirmed something unusual, if not what she originally thought she had found.

Edited by Jodie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

Did I forget anything? probably, but I'll get to you.

I'd give two of those bullet points weight in your modern human DNA argument (Paulides "human" rantings and the domain). Since Paulides rejects evolution, pretty much anything hominid has to be human. That domain registration I discovered could simply be an easy to digest URL (she also owns sasquatchgenome.com). I assume these things (if they exist) are indeed wild and arguably people if they are Homo. It suffices to say the nutshell defense of your theory has always been Stubstad's mtDNA.

Since Christmas seems to be a time for lists, here's my case against modern human DNA:

Ketchum believes the flesh from the shooting is Bigfoot (she hasn't disavowed the story or called the cops).

Randles hasn't backed away from his belief that General killed two of these creatures.

Paulides and others have claimed the paper is co-authored by other PhDs.

Outside labs have sequenced the samples.

The second submission of the paper is rumored to be nearing publication.

Ketchum has claimed extraordinary proof.

If she doesn't have something interesting, I would chalk it up to either gross incompetence or a hoax. I've looked at Ketchum's patent application and a small abstract from a previously published paper. I find it extremely hard to believe she doesn't know what she's doing. For crying out loud, even I know not every human and animal sequence is in GenBank. Ketchum's assertion she has proof would mean she's being incredibly dishonest if all she really has is modern human DNA. If that's the case, her co-authors and reviewers (both at Nature and the current journal) have failed miserably. After all, MM's Nature source didn't call the paper a fraud. He/she said it needed the help of a zoologist.

Edited by slimwitless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you do bring up an important point. If Ketchum is deciding which specimens are "in" and which are "out" of the "study" she's potentially shredding its credibility.

Wait a minute here parn. Are you saying that if Ketchum doesn't use human samples the study has lost credibility? Wouldn't you want to exclude Obvious modern human ss samples from the study since there are so many they wouldn't be relevant to any discovery. What criteria would you propose to screen samples , so as not to waist funds testing known animals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but all species of North American large mammals have been photographed by these millions of trail cams. So your argument doesn't hold water even if they could detect ultrasound.

Absolutely correct. Supposedly less intelligent mammals have been photographed in droves. My working hypothesis is that if Sasquattle exist, they're probably a bit smarter than the host of animals in trail cam pictures posted above. If they exist, there probably aren't hundreds of thousands of them wandering the woods like all the animals in trail cam pictures posted above. So, in my opinion, it's a possibility albeit not necessarily a likely one. It's very difficult to hypothesize about an undiscovered critter... I am just throwing out some ideas man, not making arguments. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

I'd give two of those bullet points weight in your modern human DNA argument (Paulides "human" rantings and the domain). Since Paulides rejects evolution, pretty much anything hominid has to be human. That domain registration I discovered could simply be an easy to digest URL (she also owns sasquatchgenome.com). I assume these things (if they exist) are indeed wild and arguably people if they are Homo. It suffices to say the nutshell defense of your theory has always been Stubstad's mtDNA.

Since Christmas seems to be a time for lists, here's my case against modern human DNA:

Ketchum believes the flesh from the shooting is Bigfoot (she hasn't disavowed the story or called the cops).

Randles hasn't backed away from his belief that General killed two of these creatures.

Paulides and others have claimed the paper is co-authored by other PhDs.

Outside labs have sequenced the samples.

The second submission of the paper is rumored to be nearing publication.

Ketchum has claimed extraordinary proof.

If she doesn't have something interesting, I would chalk it up to either gross incompetence or a hoax. I've looked at Ketchum's patent application and a small abstract from a previously published paper. I find it extremely hard to believe she doesn't know what she's doing. For crying out loud, even I know not every human and animal sequence is in GenBank. Ketchum's assertion she has proof would mean she's being incredibly dishonest if all she really has is modern human DNA. If that's the case, her co-authors and reviewers (both at Nature and the current journal) have failed miserably. After all, MM's Nature source didn't call the paper a fraud. He/she said it needed the help of a zoologist.

it's a fascinating story.

we can only speculate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Alpinist

^^^^^

Pretty much every thread on this entire forum consists of skeptic trolls spinning like madmen in hamster wheels. Though I'd check in here for signs of intelligent life, but no luck ....

Carry on and enjoy yourselves ! laugh.gif

Edited by Alpinist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest vilnoori

She has to cherry pick, Parn. Too many of the samples could be mistaken for BF by the submitters but actually be of cow, elk, bear, hunter/hiker (ahem), you know the drift. She has to sift out the dross, and work with just the gold to begin with. But she would need to have many samples of what she thinks is BF, which pass an initial DNA test filter I'm sure she must have put into use to screen the samples. If she has a lot, she still can have a statistically significant result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda like cherry picking which reasons and interpretations fit your preferred scenario and ignoring all the data to come up with an "argument" that the data is false.

Tim B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know exactly what she did. The best I can tell from what Justin said was that she initially did a black/white test on the samples to determine if they were human or not. She sent the ones that tested human out to reference labs, the reference labs are the ones that questioned what the samples were. From there she developed primers to pull the sequences out, and then sent her samples and primers out to other reference labs for verification. Now what they got is anyone's guess. What Justin told me didn't really make sense, but it was essentially what Lindsay said. My take on that is that neither one understood what they were told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

it's a fascinating story.

we can only speculate.

Agreed on both points. It makes no sense unless it's true (which arguably makes no sense).

Am I making any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

none whatsoever :)

lets also remember that Mike Ruggs molar was 'relegated' to a second tier of testing along with other bones in favour of DNA from fresher samples ie skin, hair, toenails etc. That's being selective, but only with regard to quality of results. Doesn't necessarily mean the tooth will never get tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest parnassus

Well, if it's American Journal of Physical Anthropology, it's not going to be anytime soon.

http://onlinelibrary...v147.1/issuetoc

Although "Mitochondrial haplogroup C4c: A rare lineage entering America through the ice-free corridor?" looks interesting.

Slim, yes, interesting.

sounds like regular modern humans NOT IN GENBANK. How about that? Isolated tribes with rare or previously undocumented haplotypes? How about that? And they aren't bigfoots. How about that?

I'm going out of town but will check on the article when I get back.

Edited by parnassus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest slimwitless

Slim, yes, interesting.

sounds like regular modern humans NOT IN GENBANK. How about that? Isolated tribes with rare or previously undocumented haplotypes? How about that? And they aren't bigfoots. How about that?

I'm going out of town but will check on the article when I get back.

It's too bad Ketchum and her co-authors don't read your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Well rock-on Beringia! The paleo-indian gateway to N.America. GenBank should get a big boost, from four to fifteen haplotypes if I'm reading it right.

Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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