The Ketchum Report

[southernyahoo]

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.

I guess you haven't been listening to Saskeptic, the journal isn't going to do the paper for the author or any of the work. The paper has to be done right, the structure of the study, with all relevant analyses must eliminate all other possible explanations for the data. We've heard arguments that someone could fake the results with a mixture of human and ape blood, or that the samples could be contaminated by human DNA, and that just because the sequences of all humans are not in the data base, the results would be meaningless. You are now flipping your argument in stating it makes no difference how the study is done, provided the DNA shows something unique. We also have arguments that the results need to be repeatable. Would Henry G. puplish wihout that being done? Or are you satisfied it has been?

[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.

Yes, there exists evidence for Bigfoot. You've ably listed areas of such evidence (although I would exclude "The DNA" for the time being).

When you hear statements to the effect that there is no evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, what is meant is that there is no definitive or conclusive evidence for Bigfoot. In other words, all the types of evidences you cite are objectively inconclusive: we understand that pictures and film can be hoaxed, that historical records have been tainted by false stories done for a variety of motives and reasons, and personal encounters are problematic for a host of reasons, and that all these evidences may be related culturally, rather than biologically. It boils down to this: all the evidences you cite are products of fallible human beings. We need a product of nature, i.e., the body, to be sure.

[Guest]

It's something I've seen here by some of our more vocal skeptics.

Words fail me (sort of, I still have some to share).

You have no idea how hard I work to avoid committing logical fallacies in my posts, and in my opinions of this topic. If you think my opinions and posts are some form of rhetorical game in which I try to use language to catch someone for a "gotcha" then you could not be more wrong. For crying out loud, I had just posted in this thread an explanation of why I wouldn't necessarily become a believer myself if I saw a bigfoot myself! Why? Because I would want to consider that experience as objectively as possible, and all manner of things can affect my subjective perception of an event. How could I possibly work harder to avoid committing a logical fallacy than to be cautious of my own eyes when they report to me something that is very unlikely?

As for the information I introduce to this Forum and the opinions I express, did you ever notice how I back up my statements with real, factual information? Are you saying it's logically fallacious for me to express an opinion, explain the facts behind that opinion, and, as I've very often done here on the BFF, provide a link to or pdf of an actual peer-reviewed journal article from which those facts originated? Just a couple of pages ago in this thread, Mulder charged that Henry Gee's willingness to consider cryptid manuscripts for publication in Nature was nothing but a dishonest attempt by "S"keptics to create the impression that there's no publication bias against such papers. I addressed his charge with actual, referenced quotes from Henry Gee that illustrated Mulder's inaccuracy on that point. What was the logical fallacy I committed there? Southernyahoo asked about the likelihood of Henry Gee actually being the person to review Ketchum's manuscript. In response, I again did more direct research myself, explaining the structure of the editorial staff in the biological sciences, reading each editor's "areas of responsibility" statement from the journal itself, and providing the direct quote of Gee's responsibilities to illustrate that yes, indeed, Ketchum's alleged manuscript would be right in Gee's wheelhouse. Tell me, which logical fallacy did I commit there?

Now before the backpedaling and "I wasn't referring to you"s start, I've read a lot of posts from folks who are probably considered "some of our more vocal skeptics", and I see these folks, every day, doing the same thing I do. They back up their statements, they do a lot of research before they post, and they want to honestly engage in fact-based discussions of the issues.

I don't believe in a flesh and blood bigfoot, but I'm fascinated by the experiences of people who claim to have seen them. My goal here is not to make other people look foolish so I can then go high-five my elbow-patched colleagues in the pub. My goal is to learn more about why people make such claims. One possible explanation is that they really have encountered flesh and blood bigfoots. Because there is nothing that can be done with anecdotal accounts to authenticate anecdotal accounts, I take claims of physical evidence very seriously indeed. If there is physical evidence establishing the existence of bigfoot, I want to know about it. I want to understand it. If it convinces me, then I will also want to champion it for the incredible discovery it would be. But incredible discoveries are claimed all the time without actually having the goods - that's what makes them incredible. So part of my learning about the claims of physical evidence involves questioning everything so we can begin discussions from unambiguous, unassailable positions of fact. (With respect to Dr. Ketchum's manuscript and its fate in publication, the first fact to establish is if it exists at all.)

If you are someone who's seen a bigfoot and knows they exist, then I can see how someone like me questioning everything and exploring alternative explanations could be tedious - even insulting. This is why I avoid the "sightings" threads. No matter how compelling someone's account might be, there's nothing I can conclude about it other than "I don't know what you experienced." But claims of physical evidence can be evaluated. I am trying to evaluate that evidence to see if it potentially is of sufficient quality to confirm the existence of a fantastic new species, living right under our noses. All I can ask of people engaging me in these threads is to approach them as honestly as I do. If you claim something as factual, then I'm likely to ask "how do we know this?" Be prepared to answer that - or better yet, explain it up front when you express the thing you think is a fact. It's only when all participants engage in a discussion with the same goal - establishing the basic, unambiguous, and unassailable facts, then we can advance our understanding.

[Will]

Grayjay has seem to hit the nail on the head.

Edited to remove improper statement. Chris B.

[Guest RioBravo]

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.

A voice of reason cries out from the wilderness!

[Guest]

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.

Thanks much, Jodie. Appreciate the info. I wonder why Dr. Nelson would seemingly find it more incredible that human blood would be found on a screw trap on a cabin's front porch instead of the blood of a near human. Comments like that are the cause of much head scratching.

sy --- does this match your understanding, because, unless I misread your comments, you seemed to find Dr. Ketchum lurking unacknowledged in the DNA portion of Tribal Bigfoot.

Edited January 1, 2012 by jerrywayne

[Guest Jodie]

Well there are wonderful skeptics like you Saskeptic, and then there is Parn, who is good to have around for entertainment value. Mulder can get a bit tiring too with his "science hates bigfoot" stance.

For what it is worth, I appreciate all of you and your contributions when it isn't arguing about debate methods or the scientific method. Those arguments seem to be cyclical to the point of where I don't read them anymore. The only thing that keeps those fires lit is the willingness of you guys to engage each other repeatedly and the newer members egging you all on who haven't read the same stuff over and over again. I don't know why you all don't just go back to old threads and cut & paste to save you the effort of typing.

That would be my take on it anyway. I say start a thread specifically for debating debating techniques and one for the pro's and con's of the scientific method and the academia's role in promoting/squashing the idea of sasquatch so we can actually ponder the topics in peace.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Jodie

[Guest]

Grayjay has seem to hit the nail on the head.

Perhaps that's because her comments were baseless and a blanket insult to several long-time BFF members. By all means though, please dig through my posts and illustrate the specific logical fallacies you think I've committed.

Edited quote to remove improper statement. Chris B.

[Guest Jodie]

Saskeptic, I have not seen anything ever in your posts that would make me accuse you of such. I apologize if you are offended by that, but in all fairness, that is not always the case with other long term members here on the forum in either camp. For what it is worth, I think the vast majority of us appreciate your participation, I know I do.

[Guest]

Perhaps that's because her comments were baseless and a blanket insult to several long-time BFF members. By all means though, please dig through my posts and illustrate the specific logical fallacies you think I've committed.

Saskeptic to avoid derailing this thread I'd be happy to take this to PM's to make my case.

[Guest]

You're probably right. I wish Paulides would use the term "modern human" if that's really what he means (I hope not). It would eliminate a lot of confusion.

Are any of us still thinking that BF is human????

How could BF be human?

He has no fire, no cities,no formal gatherings nor living spaces together with fire, nor a written acknowledged language of any sort..

They do not look human, they look and act as a smart ape like animal who has successfully hidden themselves for centuries from humans.

That's Wise behavior regarding avoiding human contact on their part.

We kill that which we don't understand and are frightened of during woodland encounters by hunters, hikers, and people who encounter them all seem to share the desire to leave immediately upon sighting them, or shooting to defend themselves.

Some of the personal encounters that I've read and heard about were terrifying for the humans, who in some cases were *chased* by the BF as the humans departed from the encounter.

[Guest Jodie]

Susie, there are a lot of folks that think either human or ape, but are waiting on the results of the DNA project to confirm or deny, if it ever happens. There are a lot of other threads regarding the human/ape debate. Mainly we are trying to figure out what the DNA rumors indicate, or at least that's what I got out of the thread lately.

[Guest parnassus]

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.

the DNA was completely human; the polymorphism was a known one among the Native Americans of the area. Known, that is, to experts in the field of human genetics, which did not include Nelson.

Edited January 1, 2012 by parnassus

[southernyahoo]

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!!!!!!!

It is true that Paulides doesn't shy away from other weird observations, other than bigfoot, I'll give him that.

One letter from the lab is on page 253 for a sample provided from Gasquet California dated Dec. 19th 2008. The sample was determined from morphology exam to be from an unknown primate with no DNA result at that point. It was suspected there was inhibitors that were interfering with amplification that sometimes occurs with feline hairs. The lab said that further testing was warranted and that they were developing "novel extraction protocols and kits" to get a pure DNA result.

Another letter is on page 372 & 373 from Hoopa Valley "Ullibarri" sample. and dated Mar. 21, 2009. They had sequenced nuDNA and were

analysing X / Y chromosome markers. (Amelogenin Locus) The result indicated was not normal for humans.

This latter sample was discussed by Ketchum and Paulides on Coast to Coast and both letters have similar writing style and comments at the end.

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

It is looking like a Non-human type of human. If that seems confusing, I wouldn't blame Paulides for it , he is just as much at the mercy of what science can tell us about it as anyone.

You might also consider that Paulides might be purposely simplistic, while also well informed about whether there is any non-human ape specific sequences in the results.

ETA: I think Jodie is mistaken.

Edited January 1, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

This post seems almost like it's directed at me

I'd have to at least give a nod to the hallucination hypothesis. However I have noticed over the years that a certain lack of consistency occurs with my delusions. If after a minute or two of viewing I night be satisfied that I actually saw one and that would probably make me a believer right there. Unless I had a fever then I'd be disappointed again. Just like waking up from the dream of finding a chest of gold.

I do not require anyone else to become convinced for myself. If I saw one with no evidence to show for it I wouldn't be too chuffed about it. I'd just be happy I had my experience. I would still be on the look-out for hallucination and think others should as well. I'd rather know the truth for sure than be subjected to continual self-doubt.

Yikes Guys, How and Why do so many people think BF sightings are hallucinations? I can accept mis-identification, but hallucinations are different from a poorly interpreted sighting of some sort.