The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

I know I keep harping on this but have any of your wives and girlfriends been put on bedrest while pregnant or hospitalized because their blood pressure suddenly shot up? That is pre-eclampsia. When they begin having seizures or stroke from it that is full blown eclampsia.

Consequently, a new biological hypothesis is proposed to account for the unexplained disappearance of H. neanderthalensis some 30 000 years ago related to the possible appearance of preeclampsia as a factor affecting the survival of the species.

http://www.jrijourna...0043-3/abstract

It seems like we sacrificed some immune factors when we started evolving large brains. If we mixed with Neandertal I wonder if the missing C-1 receptor was a legacy we inherited from them since we are the only primate that doesn't have it. This has implications for a human woman's ability to be able to carry a fetus to term from some kind of mating with an unknown primate in the past. It recognizes the fetus as other and the immune response goes into hyperdrive.

http://www.newswise....content=Twitter

Here, in an attempt to identify further‘potentially compensated mutations’ (PCMs) of interest, we have compared our dataset of disease-causing/disease associated mutations with their corresponding nucleotide positions in the Denisovan hominin, Neanderthal and

chimpanzee genomes. Of the 15 human putatively disease-causing mutations that were found to be compensated in chimpanzee, Denisovan or Neanderthal, only a solitary F5 variant (Val1736Met) was specific to the Denisovan. In humans, this missense mutation is associated with activated protein C resistance and an increased risk of thromboembolism and recurrent miscarriage. It is unclear at this juncture whether this variant was indeed a PCM in the Denisovan or whether it could instead have been associated with disease in this ancient hominin.

http://www.humgenomi...364-5-5-453.pdf

Edited December 9, 2012 by CTfoot

[Guest]

The "hobbit" co-existed at the same time as man, so there's that claim debunked.

Nickname: Hobbit

Where Lived: Asia (Indonesia)

When Lived: About 95,000 – 17,000 years ago

OK..I'll give ya that..but it didn't exist 15K years ago. I stand by my claim..

THERE WERE NO OTHER HOMINIDS or *quasi HOMINIDS* present at the time Ketcham claims.

BTW..there's no clear data on on this HOBBIT creature..in any event it was an ISOLATED species.

[Guest]

It seems like we sacrificed some immune factors when we started evolving large brains. If we mixed with Neandertal I wonder if the missing C-1 receptor was a legacy we inherited from them since we are the only primate that doesn't have it. This has implications for a human woman's ability to be able to carry a fetus to term from some kind of mating with an unknown primate in the past. It recognizes the fetus as other and the immune response goes into hyperdrive.

No more or less so than any other pregnancy. ALL fetuses trigger an immune response in that way, as they are partly foreign genetic material (from the father).

[Guest]

Once again: DNA comes from sample. Sample comes from critter. DNA = critter.

SAMPLE>>>better be documented as to where it came from and that it isn't contaminated.

There's the *RUB*......how do you insure it isn't? There is an established protocol...let's see what Ketcham comes up with.

Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1

[Guest]

Nickname: Hobbit

Where Lived: Asia (Indonesia)

When Lived: About 95,000 – 17,000 years ago

OK..I'll give ya that..but it didn't exist 15K years ago. I stand by my claim..

THERE WERE NO OTHER HOMINIDS or *quasi HOMINIDS* present at the time Ketcham claims.

BTW..there's no clear data on on this HOBBIT creature..in any event it was an ISOLATED species.

According to Moorwood (one of the discoverers), you are wrong:

This hominin is remarkable for its small body and brain and for its survival until relatively recent times (possibly as recently as 12,000 years ago).

http://en.wikipedia....f-Morwood04_3-1

Subsequent excavations recovered seven additional skeletons, dating from 38,000 to 13,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia....f-Morwood04_3-2

see also

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Homo-floresiensis

http://www.macroevolution.net/homo-floresiensis.html#.UMQXkqzNkwg

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/homo_floresiensis.php

http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_flor.html

Edited December 9, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

No more or less so than any other pregnancy. ALL fetuses trigger an immune response in that way, as they are partly foreign genetic material (from the father).

Mulder, I just give up, you simply don't understand the physiology well enough to understand what the research I linked means, and that's fine.

[Guest]

Mulder, I just give up, you simply don't understand the physiology well enough to understand what the research I linked means, and that's fine.

This debate will never end...the results will never qualify under strict peer review, but you will have hanger ons...who will never accept the fact that this study is inherently flawed and has conclusions that are simply absurd (Unknown species mated with human 15Kyrs ago). The science won't support this conclusion...it's a no brainer to me. Having said all this>>>>if this study can hold up to the scrutiny of scientific querry and peer review (AKA...meets the standard of SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY), then I will proclaim this study a Hallmark in the annals of scientific research.

Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1

[Guest thermalman]

*First* Sas was a hybrid from Human female and unknown species. Thus, those Offspring are the true SAS . OK...in order for mDNA to persist in the SAS...those SAS themselves must in turn mate with OTHER HUMAN FEMALES.

Here is what was said:

the mDNA comes not from "mixing" but from the mother alone. Ultimately mDNA is mixed in humans due to a lot of human-human interbreeding. Do we think that there would be a LOT of Human Sasquatch interbreeding? Also, females are the important element in the story. Human mDNA gets into Sasquatch by a Sasquatch mating with a woman, that woman having Sasquatch babies [doubtless a difficult birth for the smaller human birth canal], some of these surviving babies being girls with mom's mDNA, and either being popular successful breeders or there being an awful lot of sasquatch rapes of women who then have successful pregnancies.

Where is the error filled interpretation? You don't need the report to respond to what's already *out there*>>>>

Basically...he is responding to what Ketcham has already SAID....Hybrid from human and unknown...originated *around* 15K years ago.

Here's a quote to sum up his position:

"I guess that I have nothing to do but to await whatever results and awkward explanations may come"

You've already posted the awkward explanation. Now we wait for the REAL results.

WHHAAAAAAAA? "NOT YET RELEASED" you say?!

But we're 375 pages deeeeep into speculation!

Can't we MAKE HER fullfill our WISHES!?!?!?! [/sarcastic rant]

Some are trying!!

Mulder you crack me up. Using the word "facts" does not equal their actually being any. You cannot prove that a paper exists any more than i can prove that it doesn't. The only difference is that i refer to my position as my opinion. You refer to yours as being a fact.

If you don't believe the paper exists, phone Melba and ask her yourself? Just a common sense thought.

Edited December 9, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

You've already posted the awkward explanation. Now we wait for the REAL results.

Valid results? Those published and passing peer review?

OK...but PLEASE..don't hold your breath

[Guest thermalman]

SAMPLE>>>better be documented as to where it came from and that it isn't contaminated.

There's the *RUB*......how do you insure it isn't? There is an established protocol...let's see what Ketcham comes up with.

How do you know it might be? Were you there?

Valid results? Those published and passing peer review?

OK...but PLEASE..don't hold your breath

She's got more than you got. Where's your evidence to prove differently? I'd be willing to suggest that you wouldn't understand any of what's written on the report.

Edited December 9, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Just out>>

that's your best rebuttal to date, against the study

Edited December 9, 2012 by AaronD
reposted images

[Guest]

that's your best rebuttal to date, agains the study

Powerfull stuff

But Hold on folks>>>

I have another

MELBA IS >>>

Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1

[Guest]

If the paper doesn't pass peer review, does that mean the entire premise is wrong? Does it mean that Melba and every other pro BF person are lying? Or does it mean science won't accept it until a body is dumped on the table?

Many keep speaking of Sasquatch raping human women and some speak of Sasquatch as if it is the result of one lone birth, but to me the likely explanation would be a group of the "unknown" in the equation that cohabitated with a group of modern humans. I don't see this "unknown" as having to be some sort of horrid beast. True they would be very different looking from us, but that doesn't mean they would have to rape human females or would have been seen as a threat by humans.

It also seems to me there could be male humans who also mated with females from the "unknown" group and am I correct that females resulting from those couplings would carry the "unknown" group's necessary DNA?

And if this was happening, mass cohabiting and interbreeding that is, and the offspring were not "shunned", and especially if these groups were remote from other humans and/or shunned by other human groups, eventually the interbreeding would result in a group that did not resemble humans or the original "unknowns" and had became what we know as Sasquatch.

This is just a theory, or more of a "wild guess". Shoot holes in it or whatever. I don't know enough about DNA to know if DNA would support that happening. If not, hopefully someone will explain how and I can put that one to rest.

Does this give anyone else a creepy feeling? Has anyone else also been researching "Giants" in our history?

Is this unknown hominid a Giant?

[Guest]

this was posted on BFE quoting RL. Of coarse it has to be taken with at least 40 to 50 grains of salt.

But it would be a good thing.

Comments from a female peer reviewer on Ketchum’s paper. One of my commenters is friends with a man who knows a woman who is on the peer review team that is looking at Ketchum’s paper. According to the man, the woman was holding up the paper because she refused to believe that if Bigfoots were created in Ice Age SW Europe 15,000, then they could have somehow ended up in North America possibly soon afterwards.

The birth of Bigfoot would have to be somewhere in Asia, possibly Siberia or the Far East, for the Bigfoots to follow the Amerindians into the Americas. This is all based on the assumption that Bigfoots followed the Amerindians across the Bering Straight into the Americas. The Bigfoots would have had to have been in Siberia to do that. So how to the Bigfoots get from SW Europe to Siberia? To the reviewer, this made no sense, and Ketchum had no explanation for it either.

However, a recent study confirming what I had always suspected – that Europeans from 15-20,000 YBP are genetically close to Amerindians, apparently strengthens Ketchum’s case. Apparently the ancient Europeans and paleo Amerindians share a common ancestor in ancient Europe and ancient Siberia. As you can see, there is nothing wrong with the paper’s science itself apparently; instead it is questions like this that is holding up the paper.

Edited December 9, 2012 by zigoapex

[Guest thermalman]

that's your best rebuttal to date, against the study

That's all there is against Ketchum's report!

Not likely, although some others might be! Show us some actual proof that Melba's report is not reputable, instead of false accusations from those who have never seen the report?

Edited December 9, 2012 by thermalman
reposted images