The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

So let's explore this unknown paternal side of Ketchum's theory for a moment.

It has to be very close to us.......and had to be living 15000 years ago.

The hobbit? They were on a island in SE Asia 15000 years ago and four feet tall. Not a likely candidate. I also understand that Homo Erectus manufactured stone tools and used fire..... again not a likely candidate.

Anybody else have any likely candidates?

According to a RL rumor supposedly coming from inside the Ketchum camp, the other contributor to the hybridization had a last common ancestor (LCA) with H. sapiens just over 2 million years ago.

If true, that whittles the known candidates down to just three: late Australopithecine, Paranthropus or early Homo. If the final LCA turns out closer to 2 million years ago, it's more likely Homo. If 2.5 million or more, the other genera are real possibilities.

Edited December 26, 2012 by tsiatkoVS

[Guest]

Reelback:

I can't cite a specific source, but it seems he made statements he was "in the study" as did the "Ketchum Camp" if not her specifically...or...was it all RL? I'll get corrected if not, so we shall both know.

Edited December 26, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest reelback]

Reelback:

I can't cite a specific source, but it seems he made statements he was "in the study" as did the "Ketchum Camp" if not her specifically...or...was it all RL? I'll get corrected if not, so we shall both know.

Understood, its hard to remember it all. I would imagine the sample was in the study, but I would also imagine they got the same results. Maybe they didn't inform him?

There is a comment on that blog post at BFE that Ketchum confirmed it was BF DNA. Its pretty clear that's a lie that emerged somewhere.

While many may be bothered by this result, its a good thing. Technology is separating the wheat from the chaff.

Edited December 26, 2012 by reelback

[Guest]

You would have to ask, Melba, but I do remember her saying Justin's sample is included in the paper.

Well, that can be literally true. She tested over 100 samples, but not all of those samples came back BF. She got ~20 mtDNA hits and 3 complete genomes sequenced. Nowhere that I know has she claimed that the Smeja sample in particular came back BF, just that it was a submitted sample.

Sample in the study =/= Sample is BF.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Well, that can be literally true. She tested over 100 samples, but not all of those samples came back BF. She got ~20 mtDNA hits and 3 complete genomes sequenced. Nowhere that I know has she claimed that the Smeja sample in particular came back BF, just that it was a submitted sample.

Sample in the study =/= Sample is BF.

That's fair.

The question in my mind now, was it fair, if she knew his sample was bear, to keep him hanging so publicly?. Why not just tell Derek Randles, it wasn't in the study back in late 2010? A great deal of what might be seen as unwanted attention has been because of the sensational Sierra Kills, why not just end that rumor mill a year ago, or C2C, or today?

p.s. if she wants rejected samples in the study for contrast (why?) I feel certain many BFers sent in bear, choose them instead of this Sierra Kill mess?

Edited December 26, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest]

@reelback- yes, I can back up that statement that she can't pass peer review.

She stated Sunday night on c2c that it is still in peer review. It is supposed to have been out 2 years ago. A reviewer emailed bf evidence listing her faults and assumed conclusions as reasons why it won't pass peer review. It's not gonna happen. I don't like it any more than you, but it's true.

[Guest reelback]

That's fair.

The question in my mind now, was if fair, if she knew his sample was bear, to keep him hanging so publicly?. Why not just tell Derek Randles, it wasn't in the study back in late 2010? A great deal of what might be seen as unwanted attention has been because of the sensational Sierra Kills, why not just end that rumor mill a year ago, or today, or on C2C?

Its a question that warrants discussion.

In my mind, I think its probably not her job to inform everyone of their results. She may do so at the end or something but just imagine the wild discussion that would ensue to the 'got my report card, mines an A+'.

The attention was created by the guy that invented the story, not MK. He decided to make it news. She cannot (and should not) be seen associating herself or disproving stories. Her work is different.

[Guest]

Apehuman, she's still having to walk a certain line with respect to actual data, which would include the results of any one test. She can say (for example) that she sequenced 3 whole genomes and got an "unknown", so long as she doesn't say which 3 samples yielded that result.

@reelback- yes, I can back up that statement that she can't pass peer review.

She stated Sunday night on c2c that it is still in peer review. It is supposed to have been out 2 years ago. A reviewer emailed bf evidence listing her faults and assumed conclusions as reasons why it won't pass peer review. It's not gonna happen. I don't like it any more than you, but it's true.

She said the paper was returned with requested corrections/changes. She made them and resubmitted. That =/= "failed review". We have no way of knowing if the alleged reviewer even was a reviewer.

[Guest]

LOL, I must exercise personal discipline this week and get off the forums, time will tell. I just believe Justin, that's my issue! Who would make up such a horrific story, for so long? Oh, yes, I hear the skeptics as well.....

Hope everyone had a great day yesterday, and looking forward to the New Year! I need to close this browser, but I am waiting for knowledge

and I see response even while I am in an edit vortex...am lurking, .....adios!!

Edited December 26, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest reelback]

@reelback- yes, I can back up that statement that she can't pass peer review.

She stated Sunday night on c2c that it is still in peer review. It is supposed to have been out 2 years ago. A reviewer emailed bf evidence listing her faults and assumed conclusions as reasons why it won't pass peer review. It's not gonna happen. I don't like it any more than you, but it's true.

I cannot prove or disprove anything you are saying here, but please note that its pretty 3rd hand info. I dont have the intention to challenge you on the point, just pointing it out. That guy that emailed that blog could be anyone, frankly. Its taking a long time, I agree, and also agree it may never be published. But that doesn't exclude the possiblity that its just hard to complete.

[Guest]

Well, that can be literally true. She tested over 100 samples, but not all of those samples came back BF. She got ~20 mtDNA hits and 3 complete genomes sequenced. Nowhere that I know has she claimed that the Smeja sample in particular came back BF, just that it was a submitted sample.

Sample in the study =/= Sample is BF.

Mulder - if she wasn't using the sample in the study - what was she withholding? What a Bigfoot DNA sample - doesn't look like?

[bipedalist]

@reelback- yes, I can back up that statement that she can't pass peer review.

She stated Sunday night on c2c that it is still in peer review. It is supposed to have been out 2 years ago. A reviewer emailed bf evidence listing her faults and assumed conclusions as reasons why it won't pass peer review. It's not gonna happen. I don't like it any more than you, but it's true.

This is laughable and you can't be serious---please provide the proof such an email ever occurred with the name of a reviewer or an email address from such person that can be backed-up; a reviewer on Bigfoot Evidence, you mean the sum total of all sockpuppets from the BFF rolled up into one is more like it, don't you? They poke fun and other short-members at most everything on those comment pages.

Edited December 26, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest reelback]

LOL, I must exercise personal discipline this week and get off the forums, time will tell. I just believe Justin, that's my issue! Who would make up such a horrific story, for so long? Oh, yes, I hear the skeptics as well.....

I dont know your post history or other ways you may have invested in the story. I'm sure you are not alone. Even Bobo was on a show a while ago insisting the story was real.

If you take a step back and look at this logically, its most likely now a hoax.

My guess on the 'for so long' question is the attention. He was famous within a community and everyone wanted to talk to him. Researcers flew out to meet him, he felt important.

Unfortunately, I believe this sort of attention just encourages other to pull the trigger.

[Guest Theagenes]

Isolated group of who/what? Can you provide a link?

Here you go.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/833/

A near human ancester over 7 feet tall. I'm surprised nobody has picked up on this. It's not the norm for H. heidelbergensis (most seem to have been our height or a little shorter), but it does show that height can change fairly rapidly within a species due to various reasons. Modern pygmies would be another example.

[Guest]

Mulder - if she wasn't using the sample in the study - what was she withholding? What a Bigfoot DNA sample - doesn't look like?

Very simplistically, I'll show you how an example is part of a study and still not claimed as a significant finding:

-----

Let us take a study of 10 genetic samples for [x].

Of those 10 samples, the results are as follows:

Sample 1: no x

Sample 2: no x

Sample 3: no x

Sample 4: x presnet

Sample 5: x present

Sample 6: no x

Sample 7: no x

Sample 8: no x

Sample 9: x present

Sample10: no x

Summary: X was not present in 7 samples (1,2,3,6,7,8 and 10), and present in 3 samples (4,5 and 9)

-----

All 10 samples are "part of the study" in that they were analyzed. Not all 10 samples tested positive for x.