The Ketchum Report

[Guest Cervelo]

KB,

It's just bizarre, my boss came running to me saying "look you where right they got Bigfoot"!

I took one look at who and said fake and he was all "but but they went on tv and all"!

"yup they sure did this is going to be fun" I said quietly to my self

Edited December 8, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

At least one sample sent by the Olympia Project the saliva on the game cam sample, is fairly good cirmcumstancial evidence if it was one that was process able and came back something other than human. A blurry too bright pic still circumstanciably authenticates the donor in the act of depositing the sample. That one thing alone is very interesting. Like if you found hairs or other biomass later you could check it against the sample set. Depending on where the samples were collected, an interesting past time would be to try to collect more samples and compare them against the processed set.

There is a lot of resources in the sample sets at least the ones that were able to be processed. Regardless of what the study itself says, the samples could be used to track migration or movements, even mating habits if offspring dna is found, and probably a lot of other things if more hair blood etc is found and tested.

I figure if you got the dna profiles might as well use them post study.

Edited December 8, 2012 by people booger

[southernyahoo]

It's a basic procedure, not the actual sequencing, but the study.

You have 100+ samples of claimed BF material, what are you gonna do with it?

First, make sure it's all BF (i.e. very similar). So you compare them all, set aside the ones that are not similar.

Then, it's just a process of elimination. compare the similar BF samples to modern human DNA, if they differ sufficiently, continue. Otherwise, you got human samples.

Then compare it to other primate DNA, if they differ sufficiently, you may have something.

The experts determine whether the samples differ sufficiently, that is what should be under peer review. We don't need to understand how they differ or any of the details. A summary statement by Dr Ketchum outlining the study in general terms would go a long way and not run afoul of any peer review requirements.

I think you still run into issues on shear implication. The samples come from bigfoot field investigators, you have to include that in the provenance, then you show why they aren't any known primate or human atleast not 100%. and divergent enough to imply a new type of being, otherwise there is no new species.The case simply lies in the incongruence between morphology , the human DNA, and presence of novel sequences in the nuDNA. Your conclusion might say there is a new contemporary feral hominin extant. but "bigfoot" would still be sitting there in the corner of the room waving at you.

Edited December 8, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Guest thermalman]

Don't you mean "pull out of thin air"?

If and when the paper becomes public, you and Disotell have your chance to post it and tear it apart with all your knowledge of DNA. Point out the differences of homosapiens and the new documented hominin, and explain to all of us what part of the sequence is actually different. Until then, everything you're posting seems to be "pulled out of thin air" as you stated, because only a select few have actually seen the report and understand it. The BFF can hardly wait for your expert opinion........

Edited December 8, 2012 by thermalman

[Rockape]

It's comedy seeing carpenters, cops, small business owners, etc, arguing DNA, and Anthropolgy.

These same people sit on juries everyday and are asked to examine DNA evidence to convict people to long jail terms.

[indiefoot]

Rockape,

Jurors are asked to listen to experts who have examined DNA evidence and trust their judgement. They would get bogged down if presented raw data. Someone just explaines the principles involved.

[Rockape]

True but the point is DNA is not an alien concept to everyday folks and many have a better grasp of at least the basics than given credit.

[Guest]

I see that in some of the legitimate questions people are asking in this thread. Reading a research paper and understanding what it is saying is all that you need to know to tell whether it is good or bad science.

Another question I've had from the beginning of all of this is the equipment and time needed to analyze three complete genomes, who did that? Do they have the resources and ability? That would have been done at a phenomenal cost, not to mention the time involved. I think 5 years is too short considering what she claims she did.

Edited December 8, 2012 by CTfoot

[bipedalist]

Money has a way of speeding up the learning curve (I'm thinking Hersom until proven otherwise).

[JDL]

I'll preface this by saying that I am a licensed professional chemical engineer. I'm also a West Point graduate and served on the faculty at West Point for four years, coordinating eighteen faculty in the instruction of a 900 cadet course. I'm happy to document this for the moderators, but I'm pretty sure they've already looked into my background in the past. I'm not an anthropologist, but I am an applied scientist with a book published (through Whitman) and a patent awarded in the U.S. this year (both unrelated to anthropology or bigfoot). I'm going to contrast here the attitude of a scientist who has encountered a bigfoot with that of a scientist who has not.

If you've had a face-to-face encounter with a bigfoot, you've established a boundary condition for yourself. You understand that they do, in fact, exist. Whether you can demonstrate it to others or not, you understand that they're no longer a possibility, a maybe - that they are a fact (not a belief, a fact). After that, for yourself, it is no longer a question of "do they or don't they", but a lot of questions that start with "how".

For a person like myself, since I know them to exist and to be natural creatures like ourselves that do, in general, the same things we do, I understand that they have logical reasons for their behavior as a species and leave behind evidence. I never dismiss the possibility of a hoax, because there are certainly huxsters and idiots who create hype and hoaxes, but my attitude upon approaching data or evidence is different than that of a scientist who has not had first-hand experience.

When I look at data or evidence, the first question I have is: "Is this evidence real or manufactured?" I've got a lot of filters I use personally and I safeside my assessment. I mentally discard anything even slightly dodgy, probably dismissing some bonafide, but indeterminate, data. But you end up with a few nuggets. If information that I've previously considered indeterminate keeps showing up, I begin to look at it more seriously. For example, in spite of my several encounters, I've never heard one speak (only calls, howls, woodknocks, etc. - a collectively sophisticated array of signals). But I've now heard enough from people I have learned to respect that I believe (not know in this case) bigfoot do have their own language and may be able to understand some of ours. I've also come to assign a high probability to the ultrasound theory, and it does, in fact explain an effect I witnessed in one of my friends who was frozen in apparent shock during one of my encounters (he was within five feet of it, I was further away).

My point is that I can actually look at data and evidence without the burden of the primary doubt - "do they or don't they exist?".

Any analysis that a guy like Disotell performs, however, is burdened by that unanswered question. To objectively analyze evidence, he has to suspend either belief or disbelief. This is hard to do. Disotell has a track record of skepticism, and that's fine, but his beliefs are going to color his conclusions. It is also clear that he is a person who actively manages his public reputation, and his statements may be self-serving to the extent that they further what he wants people to think of him, and at this stage this likely skews things towards dismissiveness. Watch for a 180 when proof finally breaks, in whatever form that may take.

From a personal perspective as an applied scientist who has literally faced the primary fact, though, I can say this.

Since they exist (my fact, your belief or disbelief), there is evidence.

Since they are biological creatures, they have DNA.

Since some of the evidence is biological, it contains DNA.

Since DNA exists, and is available in some of the evidence, an analysis can be performed.

With proper procedure and safeguards, the analysis can be conclusive and defensible.

So I conclude that someone, somewhere, someday can provide a DNA analysis that proves bigfoot exists and may answer several other questions regarding origin and nature.

I suspect, given all of the positioning by people who have conducted research and collected evidence over the years, some of whom claim to have seen the paper, that there is, in fact, an actual paper that contains information that they believe will constitute proof. If it doesn't exist, then some of the best lay researchers, who safeguard against hoaxes for self-protection, have been hoaxed.

I could perform a similar analysis regarding MK's credibility, but I don't see a need to do so. I'll simply attribute the hang-ups in getting the paper out to inexperience. I'm sure she would agree that if she knew earlier what she knows now, she would have taken different steps along the way and would be further along. That said, I don't doubt that the raw data exists and that the DNA has been tested extensively.

Since I conclude that the data exists and is confirmed, that leaves only the putative chain of custody for the samples and the interpretation of the data as potential problem areas.

I figure that MK a Journal will eventually work through these together and we will see a publication.

[indiefoot]

Genes r Us has put the figure at 5K iirc, and weeks not months, with recently introduced technology.

Edited December 8, 2012 by indiefoot

[Guest thermalman]

Rockape,

Jurors are asked to listen to experts who have examined DNA evidence and trust their judgement. They would get bogged down if presented raw data. Someone just explaines the principles involved.

Agreed. Which is why it baffles many of us, how the detractors can come on the forum and bash Ketchum and her report, without having seen it firsthand, understand it or having someone explain it to them ahead of the release? Senseless opinions, based on a NOTHING presentation. I hope none of them sit on ANY jury, at the trial of an innocent party!

I see that in some of the legitimate questions people are asking in this thread. Reading a research paper and understanding what it is saying is all that you need to know to tell whether it is good or bad science.

Another question I've had from the beginning of all of this is the equipment and time needed to analyze three complete genomes, who did that? Do they have the resources and ability? That would have been done at a phenomenal cost, not to mention the time involved. I think 5 years is too short considering what she claims she did.

Explain to us your understanding of the DNA in Ketchum's report and why you think 5 years is to short a time?

DNA in police labs are expected back within 6 months. In your opinion, to short or to long to capture a violent criminal before he ends up committing another crime?

Edited December 8, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest Cervelo]

So let me get this straight in regards to bigfoot we go with the experts but when I sit on a jury I'm supposed to be a DNa expert to render a decision?

[Guest VioletX]

KB,

It's just bizarre, my boss came running to me saying "look you where right they got Bigfoot"!

I took one look at who and said fake and he was all "but but they went on tv and all"!

"yup they sure did this is going to be fun" I said quietly to my self

lol, Cervelo, you will have fun no matter which way this thing goes

[Guest thermalman]

1(So let me get this straight in regards to bigfoot we go with the experts)but 2(when I sit on a jury I'm supposed to be a DNa expert to render a decision?)

1) yes, also in a court case as well.

2) in reference to those (which we get a lot of on BFF) who have formed unbiased opinions ahead of actual DNA presentation by experts, whether it be BFF or a court of law.

Edited December 8, 2012 by thermalman