The Ketchum Report

[Guest slimwitless]

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.

If her report only used the term "unknown primate", it would still be an incredible discovery. On her C2C interview she said didn't want to get into this issue of whether they called it Bigfoot in the paper. She said they had to be careful how they worded things. I thought that was interesting - especially that she didn't want to talk about it.

[Guest]

If her report only used the term "unknown primate", it would still be an incredible discovery. On her C2C interview she said didn't want to get into this issue of whether they called it Bigfoot in the paper. She said they had to be careful how they worded things. I thought that was interesting - especially that she didn't want to talk about it.

As I understand it, the DNA is modern human with "unknown primate" hybridization. We could say something similar about many of us of European descent: possessing a mixture of homo genes, primarily sapiens genes mixed with those of neanderthals. I don't think the report will argue for simply "unknown primate." All indications seem to point to a designation of parallel homo species. "Unknown primate" connotes, to my mind, something removed from homo. Just a connotation, I admit.

[Guest Scout1959]

Outside of 'homo' it would be less likely to hybridize.

[TimB]

I would think by definition it'd have to end up homo something, but it's not named so it has to be unnamed primate if what has been told so far is true.

Tim B.

[Guest]

Where's the data to support any discussions around what genome it may or may not be. It's all mute until the data is presented.. Where's the data??? Blah-blah-blah.... Ketchum needs to present the data to support her press release. There's no peer review or paper/report to be published. So lets see the cards on the table or end this thread..

[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!

Pretty much what I've been saying for some time.

It doesn't mean that in the slightest. All it means is that it doesn't match a sample from the GenBank. My DNA probably won't be in the GenBank, nor will yours.

Nor is mine (so far as I know), but all three of our genes, if sequenced, would come back HSS, because we are HSS. GenBank does not have, nor does it need samples from every individual member of a species for that species to be considered "known" or "recorded".

If a sample comes back "unknown" (meaning not matching any on record) primate/hominid) then by definition it is absolute proof OF a previously uncatalogued primate/hominid.

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

No, I haven't. That would probably be stretching my "building a house" analogy a little too far at our present level of sophistication. We aren't quite there yet universally, but we are good enough to study specific genes for specific traits like hair color, etc, so we're very close.

Example: http://www.nature.co...an-once-1.10587

So while we could not "read the blueprint" exactly enough to describe a particular house (or in this case, a critter) as precisely as jerrywayne is stating, we absolutely can read it enough to tell us that it is a house, not a factory, and what style of house it is generally (in animal terms, it's a primate, not one currently on record, and roughly where it fits into that group of critters).

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.

No, but it can certainly tell him if a critter has avian genes (bird genes) vs mammal genes (monkey genes). And within types it can tell us exactly what breeding population a critter belongs to (race in humans, tribe/breeding group in primates).

Our understanding of DNA is even accurate enough to tell us who a critter's individual parents are, assuming we have their samples on record somewhere.

And we can even study particular traits (such as hair color), as I pointed out above.

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.

Nor does it need to be that specific to tell us that that primate is in fact a member of a species we don't have recorded yet.

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.

Same question I always ask then, Jerry: are you suggesting TWO undocumented species of primate running around the N American woods? Because that would be the ONLY case where you would have one documented novel primate/hominid and STILL not have BF.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest vilnoori]

Hi, haven't been on the forum for a while but what the heck, ey. Happy New Year! Anyway, we need to look at the Denisovan study as a guide. That was done by the lab in Europe and all they had was a tooth and finger bone. They did such meticulous work of unravelling the mitochondrial AND nuclear DNA data, going to the extent of producing an entire genome, that their findings have not been disputed all that much by the establishment. However, they were extremely scrupulous in providing the chain of provenance and by keeping all hint of contamination from the samples.

I wish Dr. Melba Ketchum all the best with her study, but I have less faith that the samples that she has received have had as scrupulous a record of no contamination and of provenance. Being handed samples from anyone who thinks they have one is a quite different story from being handed pristine samples from a paleontological dig where the people harvesting the samples know what they are doing. In this case it would not be her fault if she was accused of allowing contamination, if she already got the samples precontaminated. You've heard Dr. Disotell on the issue, he thinks the samples are contaminated and that is the logical conclusion of the matter--but then he is not a believer and is biased.

I've said all along, wait and see, and we've had to wait a long, long time. I sincerely hope this is the year the whole matter comes out.

And by the way, simply because the samples she had were hybrid--if they are, does not mean that all sasquatches are hybrid. There very well could be a gradient of hybridization with it being greatest in areas where they are in close proximity with people, but still quite pure in areas far to the North where people very rarely venture.

Waiting on tenterhooks!

Edited January 2, 2013 by vilnoori

[Guest]

Are biological fluids corrosive enough, or soluble enough to seep or diffuse through the outer layers and penetrate the medulla of hair? Im kinda thinking the outer part would pretty much protect the medulla, but I am asking as I want to know what really is.

[Guest sprayanpray]

If you are talking about human body fluids they will penetrate concrete and marr some metal as the body brakes down. Body fluids are some of the most hazardous fluids you can come in contact with.

[Guest]

Outside of 'homo' it would be less likely to hybridize.

True. One also must remember that the definition of Homo is changing...some primatologists are arguing that Chimpanzees belong in Genus Homo.

[bipedalist]

Hi, haven't been on the forum for a while but what the heck, ey. Happy New Year! You've heard Dr. Disotell on the issue, he thinks the samples are contaminated and that is the logical conclusion of the matter--but then he is not a believer and is biased.

I've said all along, wait and see, and we've had to wait a long, long time. I sincerely hope this is the year the whole matter comes out.

And by the way, simply because the samples she had were hybrid--if they are, does not mean that all sasquatches are hybrid. There very well could be a gradient of hybridization with it being greatest in areas where they are in close proximity with people, but still quite pure in areas far to the North where people very rarely venture.

Waiting on tenterhooks!

Welcome back, two drive-bys in 24 hrs. wow. Happy NY also and it goes without saying the bolded info. above needs to be read, digested and incorporated into those formulating opinions of scientists in the public domain.

I actually think the contamination effect is being given way too much emphasis if the precautions taken are worthy of the funders mentioned to make it happen. We shall see (or NOT) maybe some day.

[Doc Holliday]

Vilnoori, good to see you around again...

Yes,the wait & see game continues, so much for 2012 being "the year of the sasquatch",eh?

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Bipedalist, looks like you're gonna go over the 10k post count 'cliff' soon!

[bipedalist]

Yah, I was pacing myself for the discovery and paper's release but Ketchum didn't cooperate and my little red wagon had the wheels come off it about a hundred pages back, so I'm throwing a few sparks on my way to my ETA as I wear out the heels of my new balances.....

PS Hope I get a hundred extra pluses to hand out today, taking bids right now?!

Edited January 2, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest]

To recap: It would appear that to date all we have is Ketchum making some fantastic claims, with no evidence and no data to back it up. Is this an accurate statement?