The Ketchum Report

[Guest poignant]

Mulder:

In taxonomy, non-ape to me means anything that is not gibbon, chimp, orang, gorilla, nor human (archaic or modern).

It COULD be from other primates such as baboon or spider monkey.

I guess we could all use some extra clarity on what she meant by non-ape.

[Guest]

I have to admit, I don't really get this whole 15,000 years ago thing. DNA can tell you when a hybridization happened?

[ThePhaige]

I have been reading through various threads, and even forums, and I have noticed a trend. There are a lot of skeptics, and even believers saying that Melba's stories of seeing Bigfoot, participating in habituation surveillance claims, etc are going to hurt her case, and threaten her integrity in the minds of science. They scoff, and feel she is making a fool of herself,etc. This is kind of off topic I know, but I just want to offer up an alternative point of view.

It only hurts her case, or makes her look a fool,etc, if its not true, and not documented. If it is true, and its documented, as part of showing provenance of some of the samples, then its a whole different ball game isn't it? I wonder if she is not a little wiser then some would give her credit for. Even the fact that she recently moved, could be a change made getting ready to deal with this. I think painting her as a dummy, or a romantic could be a little misguided.

Sorry this is a little off topic, but I thought it was an appropriate spot to post this, if you disagree,please remove it.

I like your thinking on this, you have to ask yourself ONE) what would your reaction be upon making such a discover and TWO) how would you prepare yourself for the backlash that IS to come regardless if its true/accurate or not. The events you mention were very telling to me that either she was preparing or someone was trying to shut it down. This is not just some trivial pursuit here , this is momentous. A paradigm shift of huge proportion. Not because of the newness of the discovery but the implication of a living offshoot/hybrid that IS human. That somehow the pool was manipulated at some point in the last 15000 years really could put holes in the whole evolution verse creation debate. So I hope in fact she is being wise.

[Guest]

Objective fact....where do you come up with this stuff...

Yes, it is objective fact that you do not need (as you claimed) to have sequenced all however many billion individual humans in order to have a representative sample of "human" DNA in GeneBank. Any reputable geneticist will tell you that.

[Guest]

That what I was getting at, I am just wonder how we got Yowies here in OZ

If you do have them in Australia and they are the same species, there might be a chance that the maternal line there has not been 'contaminated' by human maternal lineage, so there might be important stuff to come from there.

[yowiie]

That could be true, Sykes wan't interested in my samples which was a bit of a downer

[Guest]

Look - I've already stated that I understand that. However, I'm under the impression that the paternal DNA - at least in part - is unknown. I don't know about you, but I'd like to know what that undiscovered creature is. Sure you may have its DNA, but do you have something to compare it with?

As I've said before, I know that DNA comes from a creature of some sort. That isn't the issue here, which is why I'm perplexed that you continue to allude to the fact that I have a problem with that concept. I don't. But you can bet your sweet hiney that there will be those like me that have questions that statements like "It's science. You wouldn't understand" just won't be good enough.

We need to be able to not only produce quality additional evidence to accompany the DNA Ketchum has, but we should also be able to present evidence as to what the "unknown" is in the paternal DNA. Anything else will possibly (probably) be scoffed at.

Science has a way of filling in gaps with hypothesis and theory, which is what this appears to be lining up to be.

I take your point.

I will point out something that only occurred to me a short time ago:

on the subject of "missing hominids", we too are hybrids. Somewhere at some time there was a population of hominids genetically distinct from modern H Sapiens Sapiens that did not have Neaderthal DNA in them, a "precursor" or "archaic" form of HSS that could also be considered "undocumented" as far as I know.

(If it has in fact been documented, I'd appreciate someone passing on a link to the information.)

[Guest]

It only hurts her case, or makes her look a fool,etc, if its not true, and not documented. If it is true, and its documented, as part of showing provenance of some of the samples, then its a whole different ball game isn't it? I wonder if she is not a little wiser then some would give her credit for. Even the fact that she recently moved, could be a change made getting ready to deal with this. I think painting her as a dummy, or a romantic could be a little misguided.

If it is scientifically peer reviewed, documented , and published (not just in Russia).. it would be the start of something. It would confirm something with part human / part unknown primate (hominid) DNA is out there. Many already know something unknown Is out there. It might cause science to take a closer look, and even spur funding for further projects. A different ball game, and possible momentum changer.. I could see. However, it does not indisputably prove BF / Sasquatch is out there, to science , yet... does it ? Specimen still needed, unfortunately.They might want to see something more, than a hairy hunk of "steak". I don't make the rules, I just learn from them.

If it turns out to be a bust... than bigfootery, will probably not forgive.

She clearly demonstrated the "romantic" opinion and beliefs, in her press release. That should come.. After, the results and facts are peer reviewed, approved, and published... Not before. This makes many doubtful.. that there will ever be , an After. Don't hold your breath, and you won't turn blue.

[Guest]

Yep, that's it exactly. We have no proof of what it is and that should be good enough evidence for anyone.

We don't have to know exactly what it is, we know it's there because it's DNA is present in the result.

Here is what I want to know. Where is the response from the Big guys of the Bigfoot world. Mostly silence, and not much negativity that I am aware of. Is everyone waiting with bated breath?

Or maybe waiting for Sykes to rescue them ;

This has just broken over the last 2-3 days. It was Thanksgiving last week and through the weekend. Give them a chance to get back from spending time w/their families.

OK, I'll agree that the DNA is known. However - as I said in an earlier post - science seems to fill in the gaps, coming to grandeose conclusions that are accepted as fact and promoted as such by science. It appears that if you find DNA without a type specimen, all you need to do is name it and proceed to conclude whatever you'd like from a minimum amount of evidence.

The Denisova DNA was extracted from a pinky finger, molar and a toe bone. Yet from this, we're supposed to believe that we can know where the creature came from, when it migrated, what it looked like, etc. This is the problem I have with this type of science, but at least in the case of Denisova we at least have a few fragments. To conclude that the unknown Bigfoot DNA is proof that a discovery of the animal's lineage has been determined is nonsense without finding - and thus presenting - the type specimen or a fragment thereof to compare it to.

Scientists found a few bones from Denisova. Look at what's been speculated from those few bones. If science did this with those few bone fragments, isn't it fair to assume that they'll do the same with this unknown paternal DNA?

I do get it, See, but that's not the question at hand. ALL we're interested in here is documenting once and for all that BF exists. We can argue habitat, habits, diet, etc later. All that other stuff is not relevant to the all-important issue of showing it's a living, breathing critter.

[Guest VioletX]

http://www.blogtalkr...scott-carpenter

on air now...

Edited November 26, 2012 by VioletX

[Guest]

imocan, if her science proves there is a hybrid human out there, then more than just science will sit up, take notice, and demand answers. If she can back these findings, it will not be a something, its a someone. I personally believe thats a heck of a game changer.

[Guest]

Any time I "hear" from Mulder or Southern I know I'm on the right track

Going the wrong way, and potentially looking to get run over by the oncoming "truth train" if you're not careful...

I understand people wanting to get excited about "something", but unless the study is holding out and hiding a piece of physical evidence with a proper chain of custody verifying the physical evidence matches the results of the DNA testing, you still have "unKNOWN" whether it's primate or "horse" in nature.

All the wishing in the world doesn't turn "verified unknown primate" into "bigfoot"... unless you've got one laying around you're not telling someone about.

Oh look Ethel! Goalposts that move! You don't see that in Podunk!

^^^^ Cervelo, is heckling other members the only thing you have to contribute to this topic?

Pretty much.

[ohiobill]

Is the "truth train" carrying any squatches wearing overalls?

[Xion Comrade]

If Ketchums results can be proven with the release of the science behind it, she wont need a thick skin. The out cry on here by self proclaimed internet skeptics probably means nothing to her. I doubt she reads this forum, and I really doubt she reads Jreff,

Jreff is about as full of crap as any other board I have been to, just a bunch of rabid Skeptic wannabes cussing and scoffing everything under the sun with a few very well educated and reasonable minds going to and fro tbh. And you are exactly on, the results will stand for themselves, if Ketchum is a crack pot and did a poor job she will be torn apart, ruined, and bigfootery will take its biggest blow yet. If she nails it, it will be the biggest discovery in decades or centuries depending on the field of study. No in between, she either nails it or makes a fool of it all.

[Guest]

Two questions. Why would you assume "near-human hominid?" Ketchum's press release states the paternal "DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual." Of course, Ketchum's imprecise language is not helping, given that she says it has "non-human" DNA; hominin considered Homo would be considered "human," and anything further back, australapithicina (genera), would be unlikely to mate and produce fertile offspring with modern humans.

Any hominid capable of interbreeding with humans would have to be close enough to us genetically to qualify for the appelation "near-human".

And, is it not true that many people of European descent (if not all) have a small percentage of neanderthal DNA, so that they would not be "purely 100%" modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens? Or am I just picking a nit?

Well, my understanding is that "modern" Homo sapiens sapiens as a whole have the Neanderthal DNA, technically making modern HSS himself a hybrid of a HSS precursor and neanderthal. If that is incorrect, I'd appreciate a link or two.