Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Samsquanch85 I don't doubt that the Ketchum results will move everything to do with bigfoot off dead center where things are now and that that movement will be significant and in a positive direction. I don't think it will be the end all, be all in answering the existence questions because as stated several times earlier in the thread, science always leads to more questions and research. Where things will end up within the bigfoot community and the rest of society is the biggest unknown. How that movement takes place will be the ugly reality of the community's troubles and society's conservatism. Ketchum's project has already started that paradigm shift. There is no going back even if the only results from Ketchum are the questions that were raised. Edited for typo Edited December 1, 2012 by MOCrk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) ^I think it'll start that paradigm shift if it's published (hopefully in a reputable journal). Edited December 1, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) ^I think it'll start that paradigm shift if it's published (hopefully in a reputable journal). Admittedly I'm not familiar with the history of evidence/sample collection and use but isn't the volume and diversity of samples submitted and purportedly use in Ketchum's project already different (greater) than what has happened in the past? Edited December 1, 2012 by MOCrk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Yup there has actually never been anything like it, but it won't convince skeptics unless it is to be proven somehow. Edited December 1, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Thanks, you've confirmed my point. There's been nothing like this before. A paradigm shift starts with one act, the amount of shift depends on what goes on and to what extent, i.e. the results, challenges to the results and overall integration of those results into future pursuits and society. Even if Ketchum's project doesn't result in a publication of any sort or that the results are less than stellar, I hope it at least sets a new benchmark for collaboration within the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) If Ketchum's report is published in a reputable journal, it will start a chain reaction. Biologists will jump at the chance either to replicate the findings, debunk them, or extend them. Everyone will begin to see connections where nobody looked before. All the youtube videos will now be examined with fresh eyes. The thousands of news reports* written over the last two centuries will be dredged up and publicized. Eyewitnesses who previously were afraid to speak up will start to tell their stories -- people will become bored from hearing them. (They will no longer think the tellers are crazy and their stories bunk; they'll just be tired of them.) People will start to discuss and debate the "missing 400." Strong opinions will be expressed about what legislation is needed. Environmental groups will start lawsuits. People will begin to wonder why everyone did not previously take seriously the mountains of existing evidence. . * Re "The thousands of news reports written over the last two centuries," see for example: October 18, 1879 (New York Times) A WILD MAN OF THE MOUNTAINS; TWO YOUNG VERMONT HUNTERS TERRIBLY SCARED http://query.nytimes...78BD95F4D8784F9 February 8, 1889 (New York Times) THE WILD MAN OF TENNESSEE http://query.nytimes...4DA405B8984F0D3 August 30, 1895 (New York Times) Wild Man" May Be a Gorilla. http://query.nytimes...4D0405B8585F0D3 Edited December 1, 2012 by Oak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 ... So heres a question I have been wrestling with, if the progenitor/donors DNA coupled with a human female produced Sas what would have kept the blood lines(genetic material) from diluting into even further half bred selections? As an example: Father(unknown) mates with human female, she gives birth to twins(hypothetically)...a male and a female which are hybrids or perhaps a better term is mixed race. Now the female hybrid grows and mates with a fully on pre-hybrid human male and so on and so forth. Would the line become diluted and eventually dissipate into a slightly less and less noticeable from the original progenitor/s? Another question, What would have caused the hybrid Sasquatch race to go into a solitary existence and live relatively separate from and with a clean blood(DNA) line from humans(of today) for I'm assuming many hundreds if not thousands of years? Could something have occurred to separate us or them from further meandering genetically? I have my theories but I'm curious what others think I had the same problem and don't really like the description of hybrid when describing it mostly based on the same logic. She did say the hybrid event happened no more than about 15,000 years ago if I am hopefully paraphrasing that correctly. They are only a "hybrid species" as most people would define it if more modern humans contributed or the population of hybrid offspring became dominant in the population like if they were much more fit. Hybrids being more fit for the non technological cryptic niche seems highly unlikely to me. Calling them hybrids should be like calling non Africans neanderthal hybrids because we have neanderthal DNA. That might be technically correct but it would probably be misleading and imply more change to Europeans and Asians from neanderthals than deserved. The modern human contribution should logically be greatly diluted from a hybrid event assuming bigfoot was a viable breeding population. There shouldn't be much modern human DNA after a few generations from a single hybrid event. I have always thought they have avoided us as species because we are more dangerous with our technology and greater numbers. We logically have been the more aggressive and dangerous hominid. We probably got seriously more dangerous long before a million years ago. That is why I suspect an early date since our species originally diverged. It could have come later if some group changed niche and lost technology. It is easier to suppose that some group had started to evolve that cryptic lifestyle when we became dangerous. That may have started a disruptive selection if our species ever mated after the original split. They may have maintained the cryptic lifestyle and therefore adaptations but were genetically closer than the phenotype suggested. Their niche has different selection pressure like more hair, stronger jaws, more robust bodies, different foot anatomy and other adaptations. They may also be cold adapted and have a much different social life. All that would increase the disruptive selection if they mated so might keep them looking different even if the genetics says they are closer than seems plausible. That would seem to make the hybrid logically less fit but the infusion of genes probably has many benefits as well and would likely show after a few generations. It is hard to speculate on what that might be. I could see the hybrids likely being less fit for the niche making hybrids unusual in the lineage. They may also have some genetic differences where they aren't as reproductively viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) * POINT OF REFERENCE: This quote above is from the application - NOT her recent release.. Just thought I should make that clear. The "ruled out ape cross" --- what exactly does that mean? May sound like a silly question - but I know others are wondering too. It is confusing and imprecise verbiage. She may have been speaking directly to the convergent ape theory where bigfoot is supposedly related to gigantopithecus. She could rationally discount that and that wouldn't change just based on the mtDNA. That would assume that giganto is more closely related to orangutans.The modern human with mutations is directly contradictory to what she is saying now. I wonder if there is evidence to back that up like if it has some genes closer to the other non modern human hominids sequenced. It could be just too many genes are different for that to logically stand. Those are the sorts of questions that hopefully the paper will answer. It seems like it must be pretty old to state that it is a modern human with mutations at least I would hope so. Hello Bob Zenor It's always great to hear from you !! As you know, I am not a scientist or even close - so can we break down a few things you said here? I just hope my questions do not sound to silly. 1. Can you explain the "Modern Human" usage? What is that exactly? Us? 2. Can you explain what "non modern human hominids" are? 3. You said, "The modern human with mutations is directly contradictory to what she is saying now." Okay, this is the part that is causing much confusion among people who do not understand what all this means. So, is she saying Bigfoot is human like us? Or, Bigfoot is human but still in the non-human category like the Apes? Or is all her wording too vague to make that determination at this time? Finally what do you make of this comment by David Paulides? Bigfoot DNA has been tested in the past, five different times with each lab showing the sample as "Human." The labs claimed contamination on each event yet were unable to get to the nuclear DNA to validate their claim, Dr. Ketchum did. Is it possible the Nuclear DNA was unable to be sequenced due to degraded samples? Could Ketchum have done too much manipulation and have false readings because of those manipulations? OR is it pretty clear when your sample is not degraded and you can continue to keep trying to sequence? Thank you in advance it is going to publish, and you can't compare the two studies, one is physical and the other psychological. I'm not talking about the paper that was published itself - I am talking about the peer review process.. Scientists are Scientists regardless of what "field" they are in. And, as with all things newly published - she will have to grow a thick skin because both her, and her work, will be debated and torn apart for a long time. I'm not just talking about within this community either. I don't make the rules - they are what they are. Edited December 1, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Looking at the human side of the BF phenomenon, I've consistently seen hoaxing and ridiculing behaviors. Whether it's tramping around on big wooden feet or getting run over in a monkey suit, our species has its clowns. And one reads endlessly about people only willing to quietly whisper about what they're sure they've seen or heard, lest they be laughed out of their nice, warm community. (I've smelled and heard some squatchy stuff, and even quietly reported it). So watching the current lambasting of Ketchum et al isn't any news. IF a creditable paper arises I expect evermore. OAK@10326. Your link to the article on a sighting near Willamstown MA hits close to home. I went to college in the area, often running through the woods. This is a hilly area, heavily wooded and stocked with deer. If you run in the woods over the border in VT, you may be scared as I was: David Paulides in Missing 411 cites this area as a cluster for exactly the profile of disappearances which he has developed. Don't look behind you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) I had the same problem and don't really like the description of hybrid when describing it mostly based on the same logic. What if they have evidence hybridization is ongoing? Robert Alley seemed to say as much in a radio interview I heard. He claims to be connected to the Ketchum project in some way (Paulides even thanked him in his post-Igor press-release). I think Alley helped vet samples and could even be a co-author. I've heard the same from a few others claiming insider knowledge. It's a disturbing and maybe out-there idea but if true, how else would one go about characterizing the species? Edit to add: The blogger so many love (to hate) mentioned this idea just a few days ago: Ketchum also contends that in order to keep their species as it currently exists, the Bigfoots need to mate with human females occasionally (this is the Mars Needs Women or King Kong scenario). Edited December 1, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) BE has an article by Bart Cutino and I could not finish it, I will after coffee. And it's not because of the photo! I can't read it because I want Dr. Ketchum's claim she has a final draft of something well researched to be true Whether we like it or not, or whether it's right or wrong, I want to believe that it will be published shortly. The waiting and speculating (especially on the negative side...what if he is right?) is too much for me, I prefer to base my opinions on facts...lol and I don't seem to have any..or just conflicting ones! A year ago I was not feeling it for the study b/c of the inclusion of the Sierra Kills, and I have come full circle accepting their path, not wanting to spin back! Edited December 1, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 1, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) What if they have evidence hybridization is ongoing? Robert Alley seemed to say as much in a radio interview I heard. He claims to be connected to the Ketchum project in some way (Paulides even thanked him in his post-Igor press-release). I think Alley helped vet samples and could even be a co-author. I've heard the same from a few others claiming insider knowledge. It's a disturbing and maybe out-there idea but if true, how else would one go about characterizing the species? Edit to add: The blogger so many love (to hate) mentioned this idea just a few days ago: Ketchum also contends that in order to keep their species as it currently exists, the Bigfoots need to mate with human females occasionally (this is the Mars Needs Women or King Kong scenario). Alley is listed as a member of the NABS team, that is how he is connected. Check the NABS website unless something has changed. Paulides may have thanked him more because he is backslapping team members to keep up the pride, reinforcement, esprit-de-corps and united front more than anything else (remember he did the same thing in his textual and radio releases with Carpenter/"Joe Black", also a team-member). Hey, it's almost "Show-Time" and "Flow-Time" and I don't just mean brew. Edited December 1, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Yep, Apehuman I just came here to post the article written by Bart. It does not make me feel good about this whole thing. http://bigfooteviden...s-evidence.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 1, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) I've promised myself I will let no further Sierra Kills material, interfere with the release of this paper. Refuse to read it. Sorry Bart, love yah man. Edited December 1, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 lol Ok I am not alone, thanks bipedalist and Jrid! And also thanks for the Habituating post Bipedalist, I have to think before I respond...lol maybe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts