The Ketchum Report

[Guest DWA]

You know, I think that's actually incorrect. It seems to be that, prior to the 20th century, people were much MORE accepting of BF. The Native Americans certainly knew perfectly well that they were there. They incorporated BF into their spiritual practice, learned and taught their children the rules on how to deal with it's presence in their world. They even named places where BF were known to be AFTER the BF, names that still are used today like Skookum Lake.

When the Europeans came, they also simply accepted the presence of BF in their midst and learned how to deal with them as well. They also started giving names to places with BF associations, and continued to do so even into the early 20th century. Ape Canyon being the most famous example, and probably widest known. I've also read of local names like "Monkey Creek", "Booger Hollow", etc, and many an eyewitness report has added as a parenthetical note that the "old timers" have known about BF in the local region for a long long time. Like the NA before them, they just accepted that they were there and went on with their lives.

Skepticism as we know it really is a product of the social revolution of the 1960s, and it's rejection of virtually all of the opinions and "received wisdom" of prior generations on all manner of topics social, scientific, political, and a host of other things we cannot discuss in detail in the open section.

Well, actually, I have seen a form of your point made elsewhere (in Alley's excellent Raincoast Sasquatch). So, you're right, it's not 100% stonewall down the line. In fact, my first exposure to this topic - National Wildlife Magazine's Spring 1968 article on the P-G film - is an all-time standard of a balanced treatment of the topic. (I didn't come here from the paranormal or "Legend of Boggy Creek." Thanks, Mom and Dad; that subscription is why I'm here.)

Then of course there's the New York Times editorial demanding that reports be investigated, specimen obtained and conclusions drawn. Yesterday? Try 1871.

And furthermore, it is on the Skeptic to prove with evidence that a particular eyewitness is lying or suffering from such a handicap, rather then trying to force the researcher into "proving the negative" by demonstrating the witness is not either.

Exactly. Telling Meldrum he has to examine the possibility of a suit hoax is out of bounds. That is your thesis, skeptic, and you need to defend it. The skeptics seem to believe all they need to do is throw crap at the wall to see what sticks. All entrants in a scientific debate must make their case with evidence. The case the skeptics need to make is "all of this adds up to a false positive." Absent this case all they are doing is obstructing a scientific investigation.

I will quibble a bit on this. The US already has HUGE tracts of land locked up not just in Nat Forests, but in "wilderness" areas that will NEVER be touched absent a law change, and we add to it steadily (for good or ill). In fact, in the US, the Forest Service spent much of the late 90s and early 00s removing public access routes into many government land areas (closing and destroying/allowing to deteriorate into unusability service roads, trails, etc).

My problem is that the more we know about the sasquatch, the more we may find that current land use patterns won't be adequate for this animal in the long run.

[Guest]

Excuse my absolute ignorance in all things DNA. DNA being a map of our creation and how we work and develop, i was wondering Is there anything DNA can tell us about the characteristics of the DNA donor as in size, whether it's covered in hair and so on.

Just wondering if the unknown DNA can be read like a map or such?

[Guest DWA]

.

[re: TBRC conducting two of the only three sasquatch expeditions in history]

What does that mean? I am NOT being coy, it seems an interesting claim, and perhaps you can qualify it better, I do not follow all the various groups.

An 'expedition' differs from a 'weekend field trip' in that it allows sufficient time for the researchers to actually get something back that's compelling.

The Patterson-Gimlin expedition got us the film. The TBRC's Operations Endurance and Persistence ...well, go read the Persistence thread here on BFF, and also check out texasbigfoot.com for more information on both. Each of these spent a minimum of a month continuous in the field. I'm not aware of anyone else who has, although I'd love to be enlightened if I'm wrong.

[Guest thermalman]

Excuse my absolute ignorance in all things DNA. DNA being a map of our creation and how we work and develop, i was wondering Is there anything DNA can tell us about the characteristics of the DNA donor as in size, whether it's covered in hair and so on.

Just wondering if the unknown DNA can be read like a map or such?

We know that certain strands are there, but we have not be able to micro decipher them yet.

Edited November 26, 2012 by thermalman

[ohiobill]

Excuse my absolute ignorance in all things DNA. DNA being a map of our creation and how we work and develop, i was wondering Is there anything DNA can tell us about the characteristics of the DNA donor as in size, whether it's covered in hair and so on.

Just wondering if the unknown DNA can be read like a map or such?

Not at this point. Expressed traits are only part of what's contained in DNA. Even with access to an extensive population for comparison it would be impossible - it's impossible on humans. An example would be that your height couldn't be predicted by your DNA and probably never will be due to enviornmental factors. Certain unique traits like albinism or polydactyly could probably be predicted if we had access to a sizeable sample with known examples but how likely is that?

[Guest]

Imo,

I think that is the "peer review"!

I think you are spot on right, Cervelo.

From Russia (with love)

Edited November 26, 2012 by imonacan

[Guest]

I think there are some morphisms associated with specific genes that could lead to clues as to what traits could be effected, or perhaps even correlate with some of the witness's descriptions. For example, the original genes that where mentioned on the leak so long ago, where genes associated with language, skeletal structure, etc.

I could list the originals, and their associations, but I already have, somewhere in this thread, probably multiple times.

Edited November 26, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest]

A lot of the "sceptics" that are participating in the Ketchum thread are starting to become trolls.

I'd rather not feed them, and add fuel to the already scorching hot fire.

[Guest DWA]

It appears then...I'm in a different field . I'm not really That interested in the confirmation, but Would like to know exactly what i'm looking for. Already know it's out there, from my "version" of the field. I'm more interested (today) in the internet fallout and comedy ( thanks !).

I hope the TBRC succeeds in answering some questions they might have, and eventually sharing the gathered info.. so others might also learn. If shooting one is what it takes.. I'm Not interested, and sincerely hope no "researcher" gets their head ripped off, after doing so. I'm doubting they will succeed, by that method. I'm sure they practice other safer, saner methods, as well.. similar to what the rest of us might do (with no provable results, so far). No, I don't think sasquatch needs any "immense reserves" declared here in N. America, at present. They already have them. They might even be doing better than we think, right in our suburbs (pretty much, under our noses).

If You happen to be the TBRC group's internet PR man.. well, please ask them how us others could organize such historic expeditions.

I care about learning what i don't already know. Would like to make sure what I Do learn, is true.

Just wanted to ask you (now that i got your attention), if you are the same guy that used to use that squatchy / human Pete Travers drawing avatar (possibly under a new name) ? Thanks again.

Nope, not the group's PR man (try bipto for that, and don't tell him I sent you), but simply think that they are sticking to straight science and starting to focus on what I have said for a long time is key to confirmation: getting out in the field and staying there as long as possible. (That I got to know them personally a bit has nothing to do with it. Trust me. No really...) Three and four-day trips aren't cutting it, and that's what pretty much everybody else (other than P & G) has been doing, pretty much because that's what people with lives and jobs have to do. Since I'm not aware of any truly deep pockets in this group, well, commitment is what it appears to be about. And they don't seem to have an us-first agenda, but a spirit of sharing and not caring who gets credit. Going to their site and looking around could teach a lot of folks things about approach. texasbigfoot.com

They want confirmation, and collecting a specimen is far from their main focus. It's a thing they are ready to do, however, if opportunity presents itself. They're good guys, and I too am hoping no heads get ripped off.

As far as reserves: I'd sure like to know that current land-use patterns will work for these guys into the indefinite future. Let's just say I'm not exactly excited about that prospect, and not having the money and time the mainstream could bring to this isn't helping us find out.

And this is my first time around on this board under any guise. And the avatar is no resemblance, just had to toss that in.

[Guest]

Hmm and who said MK doesn't read this forum?

[Guest icicle]

Excuse my absolute ignorance in all things DNA. DNA being a map of our creation and how we work and develop, i was wondering Is there anything DNA can tell us about the characteristics of the DNA donor as in size, whether it's covered in hair and so on.

Just wondering if the unknown DNA can be read like a map or such?

Right now, I'd have to say no, but in theory yes. In the future when we understand what every piece does, yes. It is partly a problem of no type specimin to compare variations to and partly the sheer complexity and size of the job. These days we find out what code does by comparing the code to the individual. That is, we compare the blueprint to the phenotype.

Think of DNA as a computer program but in base four, not binary. In theory you could look at the code a program is written in and say whether it is Grand Theft Auto or World of Warcraft and what this sprite or that sprite looks like and does. In practice you'd be better off just executing the program, or in biological terms, cloning a Bigfoot and waiting for it to grow up.

That is my understanding anyway. I have been wondering much the same thing as you have.

It really is a program too. Even has IF THEN loops to take the environment into account. Even the environment of your ancestors. That is called 'epigenetics' and is fascinating - involving the code in the DNA strand itself and various other layers of control outside it. In this way whole groups of DNA can be switched on or off like a light. Even the same reigon of DNA can code two entirely different things (proteins) depending on which parts of it are looked for and copied.

Edited November 26, 2012 by icicle

[HOLDMYBEER]

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.

I have to say that provenance refers to the underlying vet of the one piece of evidence. I don't know Scott Carpenter (I wish him all the luck) but the photos don't add up to much on their own and I am not aware of any documentation authenticating the data (requiring an examination of the camera).

To strengthen the value of Scott's hairs by invoking the other samples would infer the other samples all vetted to an acceptable standard...documentation that has not been made available, at least not all of it. Each piece of evidence rests on its own until proven otherwise. The presumption is Ketchum will present documentation.

[Guest]

As I said, its just an example, when your dealing with a hundred samples, and the specific mapping of three of them, the combined abundance of material, and as you said, the presumption of documentation, then the over all picture comes into view. The provenance has be supportive, and reasonable, but the shear size of the study if proven, lends credibility. I suspect part of the long delays has been crossing her i's and dotting her t's. The DNA, if it is what she claims, does not lie, so the provenance becomes supportive of the already, rock solid evidence.

So what I am referring to , is the people who say, well just because it came from an unknown hominid, does not mean it was Bigfoot, ok, your right, science may not name it Bigfoot, but it still came from a big fuzzy upright something, because there is enough evidence of that, and the DNA supports it.

Edited November 26, 2012 by JohnC

[Guest icicle]

Hold on a minute...

If bigfoot is eight foot tall, hairy and not terribly handsome (it has to be said) then what on earth did its Daddy look like? I mean, lets suppose Bigfoot really is the the result of a human cross. That hybridization probably made it smaller and less hairy. Somehow I can't see a fifteen foot tall Cousin IT being popular with the ladies.

[Guest]

Anybody want to guess what you are looking at in the image below?

Dollar bill?