The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

I guess I don't understand why you are singling out on particular group over another. If you intended on opening a discussion on logical fallacy you should have considered opening a new thread and objectively discuss it but by targeting certain skeptics it seems your intention was to do just that without objectivity.

Had I wanted to start a brawl I might have started a new thread. That not being the case, the door was opened in the conversation. Equally I'm not targeting anyone, if folks here have used these types of arguments in rebutting opinions they have labeled themselves. Pointing out a fact isn't being ''without objectivity''.

I'm guessing you are missing the part where I'm dismayed by this enough to look into it? My point being it's a shoddy way to argue regardless of who's doing it. Unfortunately it won't change unless it's identified, called what it is and folks become more aware.

[Guest Blackdog]

Had I wanted to start a brawl I might have started a new thread. That not being the case, the door was opened in the conversation. Equally I'm not targeting anyone, if folks here have used these types of arguments in rebutting opinions they have labeled themselves. Pointing out a fact isn't being ''without objectivity''.

You most certainly were targeting someone, look back at your post. You specifically said:

It's something I've seen here by some of our more vocal skeptics. While they are deeply...deeply wounded I tell you that the proponents are bashing them. I will observe that by using fallacies as their method of rebuttal they are de facto showing they are not skeptics at all. Wordsmithing is a fine and admirable art, but abusing it within a friendly discussion should be looked at with a critical eye.

This is my opinion and does not reflect the BFF in any way.

Bolding mine.

I have to wonder what the feedback might have been if a skeptic posted a similar generalization by referencing some of our more vocal proponents?

I'm guessing you are missing the part where I'm dismayed by this enough to look into it? My point being it's a shoddy way to argue regardless of who's doing it. Unfortunately it won't change unless it's identified, called what it is and folks become more aware.

I agree.

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

It's just my opinion, but breaking down anyone's argument structure or style (proponent or skeptic)is almost akin to planning to make plans.......Is this really any benefit to the thread topic?

Chris B.

[Guest]

You most certainly were targeting someone, look back at your post. You specifically said:

Bolding mine.

I have to wonder what the feedback might have been if a skeptic posted a similar generalization by referencing some of our more vocal proponents?

In all fairness, it's just my frustration with people debating and everyone not being aware of the ''rules'' they're using.

And as far as the proponents? It's equally not good. In my opinion....more lol.....it leads to what appears to be some ''battle royale's'' when in effect people are arguing two different things. But if you don't recognize you're arguing two very different things it get's out of hand. Since this forum is for everyone regardless of backround knowing things like this can only be more helpful.

[Guest parnassus]

I think we just covered the part where publication isn't automatic, even if the data is publishable. The analyses would have to cover every conceivable angle of critique one could imagine.

no.

If Ketchum has a new primate DNA, and submits a paper on it to Nature, then its like someone has just handed Henry Gee a solid gold bar. Do you think he is going to just "hand it back" because it has some imperfection? a bird turd on a bar of gold?? absolutely not. You are completely wrong if you think he would let that get away, and you have no basis for saying so. IMHO you just want to invent some bias; you want to pretend that Ketchum has found gold but that Gee would reject it anyway.

no. the reality is that Henry Gee would be sticking a sharp stick in his own eye and twisting it, if he were to do that. And why? WHY? IMHO you just can't accept the fact that Gee would love to have a paper documenting a new primate. Evidently Ketchum doesn't have one. Instead, she apparently has the other alternative: a paper that in essence says, "this modern human DNA was collected by bigfoot enthusiasts so it must be from bigfoots." Well, that is just never going to fly in any journal worth the paper it's printed on.

[Guest Cervelo]

no.

If Ketchum has a new primate DNA, and submits a paper on it to Nature, then its like someone has just handed Henry Gee a solid gold bar. Do you think he is going to just "hand it back" because it has some imperfection? a bird turd on a bar of gold?? absolutely not. You are completely wrong if you think he would let that get away, and you have no basis for saying so. IMHO you just want to invent some bias; you want to pretend that Ketchum has found gold but that Gee would reject it anyway.

no. the reality is that Henry Gee would be sticking a sharp stick in his own eye and twisting it, if he were to do that. And why? WHY? IMHO you just can't accept the fact that Gee would love to have a paper documenting a new primate. Evidently Ketchum doesn't have one. Instead, she apparently has the other alternative: a paper that in essence says, "this modern human DNA was collected by bigfoot enthusiasts so it must be from bigfoots." Well, that is just never going to fly in any journal worth the paper it's printed on.

Used my Plus! **** its good to hear someone making sense of all this!

[Guest slimwitless]

Maybe Nature was worried about another Schön scandal. Or maybe the paper was never submitted to Nature. Or maybe, just maybe, Nature will publish the paper after all.

The fact is fellas, we just don't know.

Oh yeah, Ketchum just posted the following on Facebook in response to someone's comment about an exciting new year: "Yes, it will get really exciting before long, LOL!"

Edited January 1, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest Jodie]

now it's "before long" instead of "soon"....in southern that means we are getting near the end.

[Guest]

I take it that you now have the book "Tribal Bigfoot " Jerry? If so , then you should find two letters from the lab he was using. He doesn't give the name, but it does suggest that he was working with Dr. Ketchum as early as the fall of 2008.

If you've listened to the interview done on Coast to Coast radio with both Paulides and Dr.K , you should be able to confirm that the letters are from Dr. Ketchum.

Paulides has never hidden his views that bigfoot is not a bipedal Gorrila, or how he arrived at that opinion prior to any DNA results.

sy,

Actually no, I do not have the book. It is on my to get list. I had read reviews stating the book had gone off the deep end by bringing in the UFO issue and I purchased his other book..

You have the book and Jodie has the book. Would it be possible for either of you to post the DNA findings as presented in Tribal Bigfoot and presumably from Dr. Ketchum's lab?

I'm no fan of Paulides, as I mentioned before he seems zoologically unsophisticated. For instance, he says things such as (to paraphrase) "Bigfoot is not an ape or a gorilla" when, of course, a gorilla is an ape. But you misrepresent him just a tad. He came to the conclusion that Bigfoot are humans based on Native American identifications of them as such.

The issue is, of course, what kind of human. Does Tribal Bigfoot elaborate on this at all?

As to Dr. Ketchum's latest post ---- We should all agree on at least one thing: She is some tease, she is.

If I don't post the rest of this year: everyone, have a HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!!!!

[Guest Jodie]

I'm in the chapter regarding DNA, there is nothing by Dr. Ketchum in the book. The analysis was done by Dr. Curt Nelson. After he ID'ed the inhibitor as being the galvanized steel from the screw that the culprit stepped on to get the blood sample up at Snellgrove Lake, this is what he says about it:

"It's identical to human DNA except it had one nucleotide poly-morphism." Paulides puts in his two cents saying this is the same as the difference between chimpanzees and humans and then qoutes Dr. Nelson as saying, " The thing we have to do now is look at more DNA. We have to sequence more of it and we have to design primers to amplify different regions of the DNA so we can get sequence across the mitochondrial genome and determine whether or not it is just human DNA, which seems unlikely that something human would step on a board like that."

There is a report from Scott Nelson regarding the language but I see no report for DNA, or letter, other than the article by Fahrenbach where he addresses the hair morphology.

[Guest Jodie]

When I reread the chapter I want to make sure that the forum members understand that Paulides is not understanding what is meant by the difference in polymorphisms. Yes, the chimp is anywhere from 95% to 98.7% similar to humans depending on what study you read, but geneticist do not look at polymorphisms alone. That 2-5% difference in our genome can encompass up to 150,000,000 different base pairs and that's a huge difference when you put it into that kind of perspective.

Geneticist aren't just looking at polymorphisms when comparing us to other primates. They also look at cytogenetic differences, differences in the type of transpositions, the presence of retroviruses, inactive genes, sequence differences, duplications of genes, expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. We aren't all that alike actually, it just depends on how you want to look at it, literally. Don't let the 98% fool you into thinking otherwise, which goes back to what I've said before, it may look like a duck on a spectragraph but you got go deeper to see if it quacks like a duck.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0010056

[Guest vilnoori]

You know, if you had a fresh sample that you knew for sure was from a bigfoot with cells that were arrested in the act of multiplication you could just go back to good old karyotyping to determine if it was human or not. Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) and chimps and other non-human great apes have 48.

We might very well have H. erectus DNA in the Denisovan samples, but because we do not have enough bone in the sample morphologically to link it definitively with known H. erectus fossils we can't say for sure. I suspect it is. And by the way when I say H. erectus I am using the word inclusively (as a "lumper" not a "splitter") to include heidelbergensis, Turkana boy, georgicus (maybe) and so on, but not Neanderthals, floresiensis or habilines (or anything Australopithecine).

But it is looking like we will be getting lucky in the near future regarding getting DNA samples from floresiensis and georgicus, maybe even H. erectus! Digs are continuing and very promising. Scientists now know to keep their samples clean and handled carefully so DNA tests can be conducted. I would love to see some decent skeletal samples from the Denisova site or similar! The size of the tooth that was sampled certainly points to H. erectus (though earlier forms were shorter in stature with huge teeth, so who knows for sure).

If that research proves productive for DNA, and enough to get a decent idea of where it fits in the known lineage, and Dr. Ketchum's study ever produces, who knows, they might even, in the future, be compared. Wouldn't that be exciting!

Edited January 1, 2012 by vilnoori

[Guest]

Dr. K's understanding of the word "soon" is a little different than mind. There reports in July that the project was completed and would be published soon. However, the months keep passing buy with no word or an explanation. I do believe that an explanation is in order.

Amen, my friend, Amen.

Does anyone here have a logical explanation of what "Soon" means in the scientific realm?

In my life soon means tomorrow, next week, perhaps a month from now if it's an important upcoming event.

But never this long!

Com'on Ray you believe everything you read and see on tv too right! Now when it comes to Mulder..... well really nothing else needs to be said!!

Did you see the program I'm talking about?

When the results were televised we had a huge forum event at the first BFF because it was the first scientifically acknowledged DNA sample that showed an ***unknown*** species.

*****That DNA is what started Melba's involvement and her research.******

Watch Josh Gates TV show reruns and eventually you'll see a rerun of that program.

IIRC you will want to see the program where they go to Nepal.

You have the paper? Prove it.

Ketchum has disavowed the "BF is human" claim. That comes from Paulides/Stubstrad.

Furthermore, there is no "hypothesis" to be had in this study. The DNA didn't make itself up. It came from critters. The study is to document genetically what sort of critters.

Nice to know. Problem is, that isn't the claim and never has been. The closest to that claim that has been suggested is that BF is some sort of possible genus homo distinct from modern man that also shares markers with chimpanzees.

The wind shifting and blowing the smell coming from the Skeptic camp back in your faces

Yes, I wonder why Fasano (sp?) felt the need to do this is in the first place...

Which would once and for all put a stake in the heart of the argument that Science is objective.

No, I won't. If he's so freaking open to the idea, why isn't he publishing the paper? The nature of the crits alleged to be received have nothing to do with results or methodology, so those must be sound. There is a lot of bloviating about "no testable hypothesis" and other such BS.

That is the sort of word-smithing and lawyer-speak that people engage in when they can't fight the facts (in this case, the apparent results) so they try to blow smoke up everyone's hoo-ha-s about "testable hypothesis" as a distraction.

Mulder , Could this project be with *The* Max Planck Institute?

Max Planck Institute Leipzig | Home

www.eva.mpg.de/

The institute's aim is to investigate the history of humankind with the help of comparative analyses of different genes, cultures, cognitive abilities, languages etc..

[Guest]

to be fair, it seems that the sentiments you are addressing are mostly the product of one member, who blames the absence of bigfoot evidence on scientists, yet assumes that Ketchum is an infallible scientist. He seems not to be concerned with the irrationality of his position.

What absence of evidence?

The DNA, pictures, film, historical records, and personal encounters are what?

I call all of that evidence.

People have been put to death on less evidence than we have regarding the reality of BF in courts of law.

[Guest]

What absence of evidence?

The DNA, pictures, film, historical records, and personal encounters are what?

I call all of that evidence.

People have been put to death on less evidence than we have regarding the reality of BF in courts of law.

Unfortunately, you are correct about the level of evidence needed to put someone behind bars in the U.S. The evidence that more often than not puts innocent people behind bars is eyewitness testimoney. The falsely indentified individuals almost always end up being black males which is way beyond the scope of this topic but nevertheless very unfortunate. DNA evidence has exonorated quite a few individuals by placing someone else at the scene. ie. the blood on the dress is not from the guy who is behind bars. DNA evidence plus body or irrefutable video evidence would go along way.