The Ketchum Report

[Guest Scout1959]

Thank you AaronD. One of my pet peeves is the word 'genocide' more often than not it's not genes that are being eliminated but rather cultures or religions. Call it what it is but the reality is under a microscope generally those doing the killing are indistinguishable from those being killed. Relatives killing relatives over petty matters, pretty sad indeed.

[Guest]

If the DNA points to an uncatalogued large primate in North America... I guess it may not receive the official latin name of "Bigfoot"... but what difference would that make? It exists, and would sure seem to corroborate "bigfoot sightings"

All it can say is that we now have the unique signature of a novel primate, and that ipso facto, some animal must have made that unique signature.

I'm realizing the irony that it looks like I'm defending Melba here, but I'm defending any process which legitimately proves this endeavor :

It doesn't matter WHERE the samples came from. If the sample yields DNA that is primate in nature, yet matches no primates in Genbank, then we state suggest emphatically that there is an unknown primate which generated that DNA.

If there is abundant DNA, enough for a whole genome to be mapped, then we can have near 100% confidence that an animal that was 'built' by that DNA exists (or only very recently went extinct.)

Now, saying "the results are inconclusive" because there was not enough DNA to try to match sequences with, or something like that, is different. But obtaining viable DNA and declaring it comes from an 'as yet uncatalogued primate', pretty much declares said primate exists!

That's the point I was trying make. Thank you

[Guest]

No, she could amplify enough to get the complete genomic material from a cell culture. The only thing about that is that it is easy to tell artificially created DNA from naturally occurring DNA so there really would be no point in doing it. When I say chimera, I'm referring to the mtDNA in conjunction with the "other" nuclear DNA.

Chimera

a. An organism, organ, or part consisting of two or more tissues of different genetic composition, produced as a result of organ transplant, grafting, or genetic engineering.

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/Chimera

http://www.nytimes.c...8dna.html?_r=1

http://www.scientifi...osed-for-animal

Not sure what point your trying to make, I know that it's "possible" to do what your saying, my point is that artificially created DNA will not fool anybody, and therefore it would be pointless for her to claim any kind of scientific discovery based on phony DNA results. The gig would have been up long ago if her only leg to stand was a bunch of artificially created DNA sequences.

So yes while its possible to create artificial DNA, its not really relevant to the conversation because its not possible to make a believable sequence artificially.

[bipedalist]

Artificial dna would fall out of the rigorous pretesting and replicability and how in the world would it be represented, wouldn't it be in odd form to begin with...... primordial ooze sample comes to mind..... ?

[Guest]

Mulder,

Pardon me if this is redundant. In considering a modern human/ closely allied unknown primate hybridization, how does DNA analysis alone yield information to verify the 7ft., covered with hair, and weight range between 350 and 1700 pounds attributes popularly ascribed to Bigfoot?

[NitroSquatch]

I've seen Mulder post DNA=critter, and DNA could=unidentified primate, but have never seen him post DNA=7ft., covered with hair, and weight range between 350 and 1700 pounds

[Guest]

So Melba created some artificial dna......as if she's the only specialist in the world? She thinks she's so brilliant that no one else will realize she has artificial dna in her study?

It's not even plausible that she created a chimera because........other scientists would know, so what would be the point?

[Guest Tontar]

Well, since that's how DNA analysis works, taking an unknown and comparing it to knowns to determine what it is, whether you like the analogy or not, it's accurate, if simplified.

I disagree. A builder can look at a set of plans, and tell anyone exactly whether a the house in it has a balcony, or not. How many windows it might have. How many doors.

Can you honestly tell anyone here that a DNA expert can look at a sequenced DNA sample and tell whether the sample organism had wings? Compound eyes? Hair covering their body versus scales? Was three feet tall or 8 feet tall? I don't think so. I don't believe that DNA science is anywhere near as close to the analogy that you used as many would like to believe.

While comparing a monkey's DNA to a human's DNA, we can see some similarities in the DNA structure, perhaps, but that does not equate to having any idea what the subject might look like in any way.

[Guest Scout1959]

Certainly if it's a unique gene you have no clue how it's being expressed. Even known genes are expressed differently in different species.

[Guest]

Not sure what point your trying to make, I know that it's "possible" to do what your saying, my point is that artificially created DNA will not fool anybody, and therefore it would be pointless for her to claim any kind of scientific discovery based on phony DNA results. The gig would have been up long ago if her only leg to stand was a bunch of artificially created DNA sequences.

So yes while its possible to create artificial DNA, its not really relevant to the conversation because its not possible to make a believable sequence artificially.

I was responding to Ronnie Bass. It's relevant because the indicators are the lack of certain enzymes that would be present.

Artificial dna would fall out of the rigorous pretesting and replicability and how in the world would it be represented, wouldn't it be in odd form to begin with...... primordial ooze sample comes to mind..... ?

You would have to know to look for that to rule out artificially created DNA, but a chimera created from in vitro is a living organism and divides thus you could definitely sequence a whole genome.

Edited January 1, 2013 by CTfoot

[Guest]

I've seen Mulder post DNA=critter, and DNA could=unidentified primate, but have never seen him post DNA=7ft., covered with hair, and weight range between 350 and 1700 pounds

And I was not suggesting Mulder has. This is an honest question which gets to the heart of the issue, in my humble opinion. If the DNA alone does not give us what we popularly believe Bigfoot is (i.e., looks like), then hence the necessity to provide other information in the study as well. Other information would be videos, eyewitness accounts that preceded the taking of samples, and the like. The DNA information might be interesting to a peer reviewer, but the secondary backing information might appear less credible and hinder publication.

This is why some folks here are saying you need that 7ft., hair covered, massive animal in a cage or on a table. Ketchum has told us what she has: a modern human mixed with unknown primate (but necessarily a closely allied species.) If true, this is interesting. But not necessarily Bigfoot. She is linking it to Bigfoot by other means that, to date, have not been discussed much. I think that this interpretation of mine runs counter to Mulder's interpretive insistence that, in this case, DNA equals critter equals Bigfoot.

[wiiawiwb]

Hey All! Say how's that DNA thing working out ~

Good to hear from you Tim. Happy New Year, my friend.

[Guest]

I disagree. A builder can look at a set of plans, and tell anyone exactly whether a the house in it has a balcony, or not. How many windows it might have. How many doors.

Can you honestly tell anyone here that a DNA expert can look at a sequenced DNA sample and tell whether the sample organism had wings? Compound eyes? Hair covering their body versus scales? Was three feet tall or 8 feet tall? I don't think so. I don't believe that DNA science is anywhere near as close to the analogy that you used as many would like to believe.

While comparing a monkey's DNA to a human's DNA, we can see some similarities in the DNA structure, perhaps, but that does not equate to having any idea what the subject might look like in any way.

Great points! That's why DNA ALONE will never suffice without corroborating morphological evidence. You need that nexus which JOINS DNA to an IDENTIFIABLE ENTITY. Can that *entity* be hair or tissue alone? Those DNA sources ALONE are certainly neccessary components, but are NOT SUFFICIENT to establish a new species and will never convince the scientific community at large WITHOUT THE PROPER PROVENANCE. Of course that then begs the question>>>WHAT would be sufficient? That's a real conundrum in and of itself. One could conjure up a scenario where you don't have an actual body per se...but could still *connect* the DNA to that body. How? PROVENANCE!! Let's say you have BONIFIED FOOTAGE (taken by reliable source) that shows a *BF* being hit by a car..hitting the road and then getting up and running away. Those taking the picture/footage WITTNESS this event and summarily run up to the very spot where the creature fell and see FRESH BLOOD/TISSUE there and take samples for DNA. Here we have PROVANANCE for the DNA that links it to an actual creature....without having pocession of the creature itself. It *appears* the PROVENANCE for samples so far obtained for the Ketchum study would be sorely lacking..but that's just MY TAKE. I think the *SMEJIA* kill sample *MIGHT* have met the threshold for provenance (I say that with great reservation)..but we now know that sample is probably dead in the water (still a possibility). Does the Ketchum study have other evidence with credible provenance? We don't know..but it's really going to be an UPHILL struggle to meet the criterion. Again..just my take on this.

Are there situations that don't require provenance? Yep...just bring in a body or an identifiable GROSS body part (head..foot for example)...even OJ SIMPSON could bring it in. The body *speaks for itself*.

As far as anyone actually "knows" at this point, the only DNA results offered have been bear and Justin's. So I kind of don't see the point behind whether DNA can be manipulated or not. Also, the long treatises about DNA being as easily read as house plans, comparing the ability of a house plan reader to clearly define what a house wpuld look like, its size and shape, to a DNA researcher's ability to discern what some mysterious DNA would produce, seems like a bad comparison. Comparing two types of DNA is nowhere near the same as being able to attribute characteristics to that DNA. I have yet to ever hear of anyone being able to read DNA and pointing to this particular sequence as producing large size, or type of hair, or a tail, or a long muzzle or short one. So while the analogy to carpenters reading a house plan and being able to extract physical dimensions and characteristics sounds awesome, I suspect that it is way off the mark when trying to figure out what a mystery DNA sample would produce.

Great points! That's why DNA ALONE will never suffice without corroborating morphological evidence. You need that nexus which JOINS DNA to an IDENTIFIABLE ENTITY. Can that *entity* be hair or tissue alone? Those DNA sources ALONE are certainly neccessary components, but are NOT SUFFICIENT to establish a new species and will never convince the scientific community at large WITHOUT THE PROPER PROVENANCE. Of course that then begs the question>>>WHAT would be sufficient? That's a real conundrum in and of itself. One could conjure up a scenario where you don't have an actual body per se...but could still *connect* the DNA to that body. How? PROVENANCE!! Let's say you have BONIFIED FOOTAGE (taken by reliable source) that shows a *BF* being hit by a car..hitting the road and then getting up and running away. Those taking the picture/footage WITTNESS this event and summarily run up to the very spot where the creature fell and see FRESH BLOOD/TISSUE there and take samples for DNA. Here we have PROVANANCE for the DNA that links it to an actual creature....without having pocession of the creature itself. It *appears* the PROVENANCE for samples so far obtained for the Ketchum study would be sorely lacking..but that's just MY TAKE. I think the *SMEJIA* kill sample *MIGHT* have met the threshold for provenance (I say that with great reservation)..but we now know that sample is probably dead in the water (still a possibility). Does the Ketchum study have other evidence with credible provenance? We don't know..but it's really going to be an UPHILL struggle to meet the criterion. Again..just my take on this.

Are there situations that don't require provenance? Yep...just bring in a body or an identifiable GROSS body part (head..foot for example)...even OJ SIMPSON could bring it in. The body *speaks for itself*.

[Guest]

Can I just say that I echo Tontars post above (12506).

[Guest]

Holidays are over now. I'm giving the Ketchum study 2 weeks more to come out. She's given an official press release which stated her conclusions. It has been in peer review orbit for what seems like over a year now. The last press release intimated that something official was forthcoming very soon. If something is not released in the next two weeks, I will just assume that this is another PT Barnum affair and everyone involved will lose all credibility in my eyes.