Jump to content

The Ketchum Report


Guest

Recommended Posts

I know that DNA has to come from somewhere. but is the pending news really going to amount to the "discovery" of the species? Let's face it - You can say whatever you want about any evidence, yet without a sample specimen you have to be able to eventually produce the creature in a manner that allows your hypothesis and speculation to be confirmed. I believe it to be in error to make any determination on restricting human activities or making legislative changes based on DNA samples without photographic evidence, video evidence, a live specimen, a slab monkey or a location/habitation that allows for observation and study. Let's be honest here - Any speculative "knowledge" about Bigfoot without observation and study of the creature would be conjecture at best.

My hope is that the evidence is good enough to spur further investigative research to obtain real, tangible proof in the form of a compete specimen, or at least conclusive video evidence.

See, I will ask (as I keep asking, but no one will answer) where exactly you think "undocumented primate" DNA would come from aside from an undocumented primate? A good, clean DNA sequence is 100% absolute proof of the animal whose sample it came from. You simply cannot have the former w/o the later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last October I went to a Bigfoot Conference in Pa. Dr. Meldrum was there and he spoke about his trip to Russia. I remember that he was disgruntled because he was asked by Igor to come over and examine a cave where a Yeti supposedly nested. When he got there it was obvious to him that the evidence had all been planted and it was his opinion that the Russians were pushing the "yeti" factor to boost tourism.

I can't help but think tha this report is appearing as a "white paper" in a Russian magazine is more of the same. I had heard that the paper was in peer review for well over a year now. Was it rejected and relegated to being published in a foreign non peer reviewed magazine? I think everyone is getting their hopes up prematurely because this does not sound like the results we all would have wanted to hear. It's just "news" and non verified "news" at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tontar Thank you for responding to my post :) . This is what I am asking, '' IF '' there is a video of a BF leaving a DNA sample would a type specieman still be required to proof the spieces ? I am asking because some think that this paper will not do much for the public because they think it would not measure up to a body.

Only people not thinking clearly would come to that conclusion.

DNA comes from body sample (blood, hair, etc)

Body sample (blood, hair, etc) comes from Critter

DNA = Critter.

It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CTFoot The DNA Diagnostics press release is genuine, that's for sure.

Only people not thinking clearly would come to that conclusion.

DNA comes from body sample (blood, hair, etc)

Body sample (blood, hair, etc) comes from Critter

DNA = Critter.

It's that simple.

That's true, and that's what I've heard from a lot of geneticists and anthropologists. Even though having DNA doesn't prove what the species is, it does prove that we have a species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: If these novel sequences aren't a part of the human (and ancestor) line, and not of the ape line, (but now seeing the wording, perhaps an ancestral line ape now extinct) what other possibilities? It still seems like H. erectus would be a candidate since it is still an unknown hominin genetically right? It also says to be peer-reviewed, so it's not a done deal I suppose?

“Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.â€

Edited by apehuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we have is her report, no details about who the other collaborators were, what methods were used, why the nuclear genome is novel. I'm hoping that my intuition is incorrect but this does not bode well to announce your findings in this way if you want the scientific community to give your research serious consideration IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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