The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

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.

used my plus already. but a re-post seems an appropriate honor (I hope that is OK) - so well said!

[Guest Cervelo]

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

I'm thinking about making or having some made "crow cookies" could be eating them all myself!

But I'll share regardless of the outcome

[Guest]

It would depend on the type of legal case what type of evidence would weigh more heavily and what evidence is even admissible. There are mechanisms in very complex science to appoint expert panels for the Judge (!) and also to bench try the case, removing it from jurors, if all the parties agree and in something like this they would (unless, there were a big possible pay-out..say a civil case of wanton intentional killing by a rich corporation employee... or, well LOL there are many avenues once we are over a hurdle of complete taboo and death of an attorney's career to take such a case). The case might end up being an administrative one, with ESA or something..or F&G and never be classically "tried." What is amazing to me? The existing extrinsic evidence and witnesses even without a peer-review paper would smash most opponents in court IMHO b/c the opponent has nothing to rely on to counter but a few experts on "hysteria theory" etc. whose testimony will seem contrived in comparison to a passionate first hand witness. And that is when a jury counts.

Edited December 8, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest thermalman]

It would depend on the type of legal case what type of evidence would weigh more heavily and what evidence is even admissible. There are mechanisms in very complex science to appoint expert panels for the Judge (!) and also to bench try the case, removing it from jurors, if all the parties agree and in something like this they would (unless, there were a big possible pay-out..say a civil case of wanton intentional killing by a rich corporation employee... or, well LOL there are many avenues once we are over a hurdle of complete taboo and death of an attorney's career to take such a case). The case might end up being an administrative one, with ESA or something..or F&G and never be classically "tried." What is amazing to me? The existing extrinsic evidence and witnesses even without a peer-review paper would smash most opponents in court IMHO b/c the opponent has nothing to rely on to counter but a few experts on "hysteria theory" etc. whose testimony will seem contrived in comparison to a passionate first hand witness. And that is when a jury counts.

I'm thinking in this case, "The Ketchum Report", opinions and judgements have already been formed by non experts, who just want to gossip, long before the hard evidence has been presented. Lots of assumptions by many who have zilch for evidence of their own.

[Guest]

Can't argue with that!

[Guest]

I'm thinking in this case, "The Ketchum Report", opinions and judgements have already been formed by non experts, who just want to gossip, long before the hard evidence has been presented. Lots of assumptions by many who have zilch for evidence of their own.

That also applies to supporters as well who assume that Ketchum has hard evidence before the study is published and before other scientists can critique it.

[Guest]

+1 JDL.

[Guest Cervelo]

Oh any hoax is a possibilty, but to put in it context don't you think pulling a hoax those yahoos from Georgia pulled is a 100x easier than to pull on with DNA involved?

I have no idea.

But someone who is a veterinarian/DNA expert and also has done human DNA work for 911 would seem to have access to some unique animal DNA and some very varied human DNA.

Again not an accusation but an observation of a fascinating set of circumstances.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest]

Incredible claims require highly credible science. And we must wait to see. We like instant gratification in this country/forum don't we? Heh...

[Guest]

Now Mulder you have been shown articles and encouraged to read up on how that is not that simple.

No articles have been shown to claim that it is not that simple, when in fact it is.

Identifying a known is easy because there is a match in Gen Bank, if you don't have a match,

And it it isn't a match, then it's something new. That is simple enough for anyone to comprehend.

and in this case you are talking about 4 billion base pairs in a genome, you have to use statistics to see how close different significant sections are to different known classifications.

Which is how you determine what sort of critter it likely is. Again, pretty straightforward process to comprehend: Compare, Count, and Compute.

Here is an example, 15% of our genome matches chimp, another percentage matches gorilla, etc...it depends on what section of the genome you are looking at as to whether we are more "like" another species, but overall we share about 98% of the same sequences. The difference lies in how they operate so even if Melba finds something she thinks is a hybrid there is still plenty more to learn other than just drawing conclusions based on a pattern alone.

I never said there wasn't more to learn. The point that I and everyone else has been making is that even if we don't learn more from this study, it is (assuming that the science holds) 100% dispositive proof that there IS something new out there, whatever it might be.

I don't have much hope for it, we will have to wait and see what she did, but there is the option that she actually has something unique but misinterpreted what she has, because what she describes really doesn't make sense from a genetic or biological perspective even if you believe bigfoot exists.

Seeing as how we have living hominid hybrids right now and fully recognized within genus homo (Neanderthal cross and Denisovan cross), one more is no great conceptual leap and would make perfect sense.

Of course.

I'm talking about the nitty gritty. For instance, there's still controversy on whether Neanderthal hybridized with modern humans. I don't expect (without devoting more time than I have) to be able to look at the raw data from the various camps and decide the issue for myself. Most of us have to rely on the experts. It's all about consensus...and yeah, a little trust.

That also doesn't mean I only want to see the Cliffs Notes.

Fair enough

Edited December 8, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Hero worship is unhealthy.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest thermalman]

That also applies to supporters as well who assume that Ketchum has hard evidence before the study is published and before other scientists can critique it.

We're not assuming anything. We're basing it on her opinion of fact, and others who have been involved with the same study. She's putting her whole life's work and reputation on the line, which is a huge amount more than you're likely laying down in your attempt at a gossip column.

Hero worship is unhealthy.

Especially when looking in the mirror!

[Guest]

Disotell's comments make no sense.

Nope.

Yes, 15,000 years ago humans were us. The pre-hybrid sasquatch/yeti, however, was not, but was "another primate." The fact that we have not yet "discovered" it in such a way as to satisfy the demands of science does not mean it did not exist 15,000 years ago (and in fact existed for hundreds of thousands of years beyond that). By "non-human" sequence, Ketchum is referring to the non-homo-sapiens sequence she found in her data -- i.e., the "unknown" primate. Finally, the reference to "angel" DNA is not worth responding to. Ketchum never said anything about angel DNA.

Shhhhh....don't confuse the Skeptics with facts and logic...

Disotell is either dense, or is intentionally misreading the press release.

Or both.

RB,

It's hard to say what people will do and say sometimes....what were these three thinking when they went on national television?

How on earth did they think it would end?

Biscardi was as much a victim of the GA boys as the public. He was defrauded out of a lot of money.

used my plus already. but a re-post seems an appropriate honor (I hope that is OK) - so well said!

Yeah, I owe him a plus as well...wish I could give more than one plus...

[Guest]

Especially when looking in the mirror!

Who have I worshipped?

[Guest thermalman]

Who have I worshipped?

It's obvious that no else's opinion counts but your own, even with paperwork. And that's fine. To each his own.