The Ketchum Report

[GuyInIndiana]

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

WHAT goalposts?

[Guest]

So, what all is going to happen to the logging industry, hunting, and the forest service? If of course this study gets big and the official peer reviewed paper is published in a journal.

[Guest]

18,000 years ago (the best guess, but everyone says between 70,000 to 11,000) from Asia to North America.

That of course was the most RECENT land bridge...there have been others, such as the one 4 million years ago that brought Asian animals to N America.

[Guest]

As far as the "Angel-DNA" thing goes, IMO, Lindsay just took the nephilim reference and ran with it, trying to make 'footers look like idiots. His readers will see the Angel-DNA part and start cracking jokes about bigfooters and drugs/alcohol, etc.. He likes to loft himself on a pedestal and make everyone else "beneath him".

[Guest]

WHAT goalposts?

The goalpost that skeptics used to say BF doesn't exist because there is no bone,DNA etc.. now we have bone(possibly) flesh, DNA etc...of unknown species claimed. But now the skeptics have retreated to Melba sucks.

[Guest]

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.

Very true. The ultimate nightmare scenario is that the paper DOES turn out to be a botch of a magnitude that so muddies the waters that Sykes/Satori will have little chance of overcoming the backlash in the near term. He might pull it for a few more rounds of tests hoping the "waters will settle".

WHAT goalposts?

HODS beat me to it...

Edited November 26, 2012 by Mulder

[GuyInIndiana]

The goalpost that skeptics used to say BF doesn't exist because there is no bone,DNA etc.. now we have bone(possibly) flesh, DNA etc...of unknown species claimed. But now the skeptics have retreated to Melba sucks.

And that has WHAT to do with what Mulder was saying to ME?

[Guest]

^^^^^^^^

Well perhaps you can tell us how two hunters claim to have been involved with a bigfoot shooting(before testing) with flesh being recovered and analyzed to find out there is an hairy human like primate living in our forests via FULL DNA sequencing and not accept that they exist. I guess we are to believe that Justin and company lied and actually shot another hairy human like primate that's never been reported before.

Edited November 26, 2012 by HODS

[Guest alaskaloner]

I heard about this news and I'll have to admit it has caused me to change my belief in bigfoot.

I hope people can be a little understanding that a while back I came on with a pretty skeptical view - so much so that I just didn't think there was any point of interacting with what I thought was an absurd group. But this changes things. A lot. One of the things it forced me to do was go back through all the years in the outdoors where I saw things I couldn't quite explain. Before, I just figured if you can't explain them then that's where you have to leave it. Like the noises outside the tent. The knockings. The calls. The prints I could not identify. The food getting stolen out of my caches. The dark, upright walking figures at dusk in the brush. Wolf snares downed, pole sets triggered but empty. "Nests" too big for any other animals. The more I thought about it the more I realized how much evidence I had dismissed out of my contempt for the whole idea.

I'll never again be so one-sided with my skepticism. You need to be skeptical on both sides of this: Skeptical if there is no evidence, and skeptical of no evidence ever being enough. And one of the sobering things about this is to think how much more might be out there. I see that it actually takes some courage to consider because small minds want to stick with the comfort of the status quo. Change is discomforting.

I look forward to interacting here a lot more, even if this DNA isn't accepted in a peer review journal just yet. Just the possibility made me go through and re-examine all my experience with an open mind - and that is actually enough. I can see it, yeah. Especially one experience I will describe later but for now keeping on top of this is exciting enough.

[Guest knappster007]

As an academic and professor myself it is easy to become frustrated with the slow process of scientific peer review. For those that say that Dr. K has not produced any evidence, well, if she has submitted her findings to a blind peer review facilitated by a science journal, then she has provided evidence.

Although we like to pretend that the blind scienfiic review process is unbiased, there are plenty of studies that show that it can be biased. My research has encountered editorial bias particularly for studies that find things that are not popular with the established scientific community.

I will render judgement once the published journal article is released. We are all understandably excited, but the peer review process has to run its course.

[GuyInIndiana]

^^^^^^^^

Well perhaps you can tell us how two hunters claim to have been involved with a bigfoot shooting(before testing) with flesh being recovered and analyzed to find out there is an hairy human like primate living in our forests via FULL DNA sequencing and not accept that they exist. I guess we are to believe that Justin and company lied and actually shot another hairy human like primate that's never been reported before.

I don't have to. It's the responsibility of those presenting evidence to do it correctly. There still has to be a chain of custody with clearly recorded evidence that can be verified to have been the source.

So a report comes back "unknown primate". That's great. Now, where is the base comparison from which to validate "what" a sasquatch "is"? There is none. You have unknown DNA. Unknown doesn't = bigfoot. It may be primate, but prove "what" that primate is. Saying, "Trust me" doesn't get a free pass.

Anyone who might say it does, is the one moving the goalpost.

Edited November 26, 2012 by GuyInIndiana

[Guest]

There is a point of reason in provenance. For example, Scott Carpenters hairs come with fuzzy game cam pics, alone the pics are inconclusive, poor definition, all the usual default stuff. Now add the hairs collected, and they come back unknown primate human hybrid, combined, that is reasonable provenance. Add another hundred samples, map a handful of genomes.........this is more than enough, anyone who does not think so is just arguing for their own agenda, or violation of their own beliefs.

[Guest]

I don't have to. It's the responsibility of those presenting evidence to do it correctly. There still has to be a chain of custody with clearly recorded evidence that can be verified to have been the source.

So a report comes back "unknown primate". That's great. Now, where is the base comparison from which to validate "what" a sasquatch "is"? There is none. You have unknown DNA. Unknown doesn't = bigfoot. It may be primate, but prove "what" that primate is. Saying, "Trust me" doesn't get a free pass.

Anyone who might say it does, is the one moving the goalpost.

What it is, is for future studies. The primary goal of BF research is to establish that they are real breathing creatures, that has been a very difficult task in it's own right. Maybe all of the people who have claimed encounters should be told that because we don't have a clear picture as to where they fit into the phylogenetic tree of life that they are full of it and that they just need to lay off the wacky weed.

Edited November 26, 2012 by HODS

[Guest]

If a study reliably indicates the existence of an as yet unknown un named primte, said primate will be named. in this case said primate will be whatever the scientific taxonomy is and common name Sasquatch. Then all other samples will be compared to this dna sequence. ergo, if this study holds up as valid, Sasquatch will exist.

[Guest]

"The one person that was able to unlock the safe to understanding bigfoot DNA, Dr. Melba Ketchum. Where every other scientist gave up and claimed contamination, Dr. Ketchum continued to move forward. Where every other scientist was unable to turn the corner, Dr. Ketchum did." - David Paulides

“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples..." –MK

I also read, but can't now find that Ketchum had to invent new "primers" just for sas DNA.

Does anyone know what "next generation sequencing" means?

If "next generation" translates to "not yet validated by mainstream science" then her methods may be what has prevented the peer reviews here.

This is my prediction:

Mainstream science will reject these findings. Footers who agree with her findings will stick with conspiracy theories and bring up "confirmed DNA" as a "fact" during arguments about BFF - skeptics will continue denying that DNA exists and many a thread will de-rail. Footers who lean toward the "Wood-ape" definition will be "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" and try to avoid this study as much as possible without directly refuting it. The ape vs. human factions will find some way to reconcile the issue. The status quo won't significantly change. Footers vs. skeptics will still make the board go round.