The Ketchum Report

[bipedalist]

Having read the article I think it says several things. One the mtDNA is not enough but can differentiate and provide comparative context. They have to also followup with nuDNA to know the whole story. Two, they state that the Altai region of Asia had several hominids living "not so far" apart simultaneously and one of them branched off into Floresiensis.. They were able to reference the tree of life and mentioned Erectus, Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal in placing Denisova on that tree. I believe this article was discussed on other threads here in the past so I'm sure they could be referred to as well. Even with bone dust they essentially can garner mtDNA from small samples back to a certain milepost, even without integrated fossils in a whole articulated state. They also used some specialized techniques including barcoding and PECS which probably means something to somebody and has been referenced here before. I'm sure I missed a few other cogent points but those are the ones that come to mind

[gigantor]

I don't get that. A simple " I was wrong" wouldn't suffice?

Not at that level Jodie. She's lawyered up and surely she has somebody giving her PR advice. They have an exit strategy just in case.

Edited January 3, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

If you are into this kind of thing he probably has a subscription.

Who the authors? 4 'represented' Max Plank Inst. so very reputable sources which may explain the fast tracking involved.

They have to also followup with nuDNA to know the whole story.

Wonder how that is progressing as the article was published nearly 2 years ago?

Edit to add this from Wikip...

Subsequent studies on the nuclear genome from this specimen, as well as mtDNA from the tooth, determined that this group shares a common origin with Neanderthals and interbred with the ancestors of some present-day Melanesians[4]and Australian Aborigines[5]. Similar analysis of a toe bone discovered in 2011 is underway.[6]

Edited January 3, 2012 by megatarsal

[Guest]

I think Paulides is trying to make the point that they identified a new species of hominin with very little DNA evidence and no body or much in the way of fossilized material. Perhaps it’s a preemptive strike to the criticism that will follow the publication of Dr. K’s paper. She will present much more DNA evidence, including NuDNA analysis. JMHO

Edited January 3, 2012 by rwridley

[Guest]

"No, I blame institutional scientists for not accepting and engaging with the evidence to hand (hairs, tracks, eyewitness reports, films, etc). There's plenty of evidence."

Mulder, I see this often and I have to disagree. I don't think it's fair to blame "institutional scientists".

That's right Furious, because Mulder is incorrect with his charge that "institutional" (whatever that means) scientists have not engaged the evidence. Here's a sampling of published papers in refereed journals based on analysis of putative bigfoot (and similar) evidence. Again, this is just a sampling of analyses that have been published; there has been additional unpublished work on such material as well:

Wu et al. 1993: Analysis of a single strand of hair by PIXE, IXX and synchrotron radiation.

Milinkovitch et al. 2004: Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates.

Lozier et al. 2009: Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling.

Lockley et al. 2008: In the Footprints of Our Ancestors: An Overview of the Hominid Track Record.

Kim et al. 2008: Hominid Ichnotaxonomy: An Exploration of a Neglected Discipline.

Coltman and Davis 2006: Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch.

Other "institutional scientists" who have engaged putative bigfoot evidence: Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, John Bindernagle, Henner Fahrenbach, Saskeptic, etc.

[Guest]

I would say this all implies that something is going to happen, weeks or days. To talk about proving it scientifically to herself first defines what she believes sience to be. It would be unacceptable to say something if the paper isnt already accepted for publication. As a honest sientist you cannot say you know or talk about prove, if you dont have your paper at least checked (reviewed and accepted). Not on Facebook.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Good info, thanks.

So Saskeptic, as a scientist, let's say you decided to pursue any particular piece of "evidence" like hair or blood splatter for the possibility of opening up a formal case study. If you asked the person presenting the claim (what I'm guessing is the first protocol question), "Where did you obtain the sample?" and the answer was "I'm sorry but our research location is a secret". Would you follow through with your study? Or pass?

ETA Along what with you said, what I'm also getting at is that people sometimes prefer to do the research themselves in this field and deny "institutional science" the proper data. They are not taking this burden on themselves because they were turned down by science. They want the credit (nothing wrong with that). I'm not blaming anyone. Only stating it.

Edited January 3, 2012 by FuriousGeorge

[Guest spurfoot]

Sasceptic, please elaborate those references to full formal refs. What you have there is too brief to follow up. Most of those refs I was unaware of. Many thanks.

[Guest slimwitless]

On an MNBRT Blogtalk show covering the Honobia conference last October, a guest named "Arla" was quizzed about where Melba Ketchum supposedly saw a "family of Bigfoot". This person was reluctant to talk about it but I got the feeling the location was in Oklahoma...perhaps around Honobia.

[Guest slimwitless]

I also wonder why Paulides knows about this April 2010 article; 'Officer, how did you come to be knowledgeable about this article in Nature journal?'

There's a link to the same article on Bobby Short's Bigfoot Encounters page. I'm certain the link was there before Paulides posted that on his blog. I think he likely saw it there first.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

I think Paulides is trying to make the point that they identified a new species of hominin with very little DNA evidence and no body or much in the way of fossilized material. Perhaps it’s a preemptive strike to the criticism that will follow the publication of Dr. K’s paper. She will present much more DNA evidence, including NuDNA analysis. JMHO

I hope it'll all be something demonstrable and concrete; like pancakes.

[Guest]

Spurfoot, paste each title Saskeptic posted above into google.

For instance the reference 'Kim et al. 2008: Hominid Ichnotaxonomy: An Exploration of a Neglected Discipline.' was published in 'Ichnos' ('An International Journal for Plant and Animal Traces) by Taylor and Francis in December 2008.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

HucksterFoot wrote, "Why? Is Paulides trying to suggest it's Bigfoot?" I don't believe so. I think he may be only showing that Nature has published an article that describes an unknown hominem which is consistent with what it is reasonable to think Ketchum is trying to do.

Well, I didn't really think so either. Then again, I was thinking Paulides might be showing signs of becoming unhinged. :]

[Guest]

Other "institutional scientists" who have engaged putative bigfoot evidence: Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, John Bindernagle, Henner Fahrenbach, Saskeptic, etc.

Thank you for the list of publications Saskeptic.

I take it you mean you have engaged in putative bigfoot evidence for the preparation of educational material as apposed to the publication of a paper related to the subject in a scientific paper?

Edited January 4, 2012 by megatarsal

[Guest]

On an MNBRT Blogtalk show covering the Honobia conference last October, a guest named "Arla" was quizzed about where Melba Ketchum supposedly saw a "family of Bigfoot". This person was reluctant to talk about it but I got the feeling the location was in Oklahoma...perhaps around Honobia.

Personally, I hope this is NOT where the location was and who it was with, but it is what it is, I guess. In regard to Melba stating publicly on facebook that she believes in and has had experiences (or an experience) with BF, is a scientist not allowed to believe in his subject matter or to experience it in other situations than a lab prior to the peer reviewed paper being published? That seems pretty ridiculous.