The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

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.

One of my many 'talents' is a nose for Etymology... In fact, words and languages have always fascinated me.

In the spirit of goodwill, peeve no more!

Genocide is nothing to do with genes! Although a bit of a 'mashup' in its original creation, it is fundamentally of a Greek root - genos - for 'race', 'kind' or 'tribe', and it pertains to the systematic termination of members of a preordained group

Of course, that group may be defined by culture, creed, colour or any number of traits.

So instead of letting something ire you due to a misunderstanding, understand that it need never ire you again

[Guest]

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.

Well, some folks in the Bigfoot community believe there are more than just two species of undocumented primates out in the hinterland.

No one here, I hazard to say, knows what Ketchum really has. My guess, based on her comments and other statements, like her "feral human tribe" film patent, and my own growing doubt, is that she will not argue for a completely "novel" primate based on the DNA. She will argue that Bigfoot is a contemporary human that has incurred gene sequences from mating with a closely allied human species centuries ago, a species currently unknown to us.

Since neither modern human mixed with closely allied human would seem to give us a giant, hairy, apelike and primitive appearing monster man , especially in a time frame of 15,000 years, she may argue for rapid mutations accumulating at certain loci in order to give us sasquatch as we think it looks. But that wouldn't do the trick completely, either. So, she will introduce too, videos from habituation sites that provided samples, documented sightings that provided samples (such as the Raven Ullibarri account), and sundry other extra evidence to supplement the DNA. Why? Because the DNA alone will not give you Bigfoot, per se.

I understand what you are saying Mulder. If she has "novel" and "unknown primate" DNA, then she can make the case for a new animal on DNA alone. I just don't think, or guess, she does. The DNA will be ambiguous. It will be controversial: (more because of its ambiguity than because of it novelty). My only point here is that DNA equals critter equals Bigfoot, as Ira Gershwin once lyric-ed: "it ain't necessarily so."

[Guest spurfoot]

Here is something Melba Ketchum should read.

http://www.trueactivist.com/how-to-win-the-war-for-your-mind/

[Guest]

Because the DNA alone will not give you Bigfoot, per se.

The DNA will be ambiguous. It will be controversial: (more because of its ambiguity than because of it novelty). My only point here is that DNA equals critter equals Bigfoot, as Ira Gershwin once lyric-ed: "it ain't necessarily so."

Yes. If anyone thinks DNA alone...is going to satisfy the scientific community..let alone *Joe Six Pack*...they will be bitterly disappointed with anything Ketchum comes out with. As I pointed out...provenance is going to haunt just about any study that can't legitimately *point* to a corporal being. If she can satisfy the provenance requirement AND come up with solid DNA..SUPER. My humble opinion...well, I don't have to state the obvious.

[Guest]

Without any knowledge of the players it is hard to know exactly what is so. One thing that strikes me as critcal, and I have said it before, I don't believe there is any way that someone like Matt Moneymaker would be so emphatic in his claims that Dr. Ketchum's report is flawed if he did not know something. Dr. Meldrum has run away from these claims and Disotell says just send me several hundred to several thousand base pairs of data and he will tell us if a new primate is running around out there. What Bigfoot camps are supporting her claims? I do not wish to be antagonstic, but do her supporters have inside information, or are they going strictly on blind faith and a bunch of wishfull thinking. It is hard to believe that almost two months have gone by since her press release and still no facts.

At the same time, looking at Melba's interviews...she seems ENTIRELY confident, and not the bluffing variety. I picture MM as more of a bluffer personally.

If Melba has indeed succeeded, it would indeed undermine his hustle.

Actually, more people have a little something to lose if Melba's science is good AND her claim that BF is part human is correct.

These people who have been running around claiming they are just apes and trying to shoot one or do other nefarious acts will take a public perception hit once the smoke clears.

For instance how does it make MM look as he's been on television, running around in the woods, knocking on trees, chasing after sounds......when it's understood that he's been doing this to PEOPLE?

How will hunters be viewed such as Operation Persistence, who are out there with guns ready to shoot one? How would it look in time when they are basically classified as a variety of NA?

Not too good! There's a number of people who have PLENTY to lose.

Well you already heard Disotell mention the contamination and now with the Sierra results we are seeing the same thing. He predicted this even before the Sierra shootings took place so love him or hate him he has a good track record at predicting how things play out.

I watched one of Melba's interviews and she was asked about contamination. She laughed at the issue and you know...she has a point! After all she does forensic work for law enforcement. As she states her company wouldn't be in business if they didn't know how to prevent their own, and interpret contamination from other handlers.

If contamination is this much of an issue, NO ONE should be in prison using DNA technology!

[Guest]

Do you really think that DNA labs that are doing forensic work for law enforcement are washing DNA samples to remove contamination?

Seriously?

Why didn't she get a sample of Smeja's DNA then if contamination was soo important?

[adam2323]

Do you really think that DNA labs that are doing forensic work for law enforcement are washing DNA samples to remove contamination?

Seriously?

Why didn't she get a sample of Smeja's DNA then if contamination was soo important?

Of course they don't wash the DNA in samples for law enforcement. Being a LEO for 21 years I can assure you they don't; however they do take extreme precaution against cross contamination.

Is there any evidence that said she actually got a sample from the supposedly sierra kills.

And if she did is there any evidence she tested it and or used it in her paper?

It all surmise and conjecture coming mostly from people on this site

[JDL]

Interesting discussion above. But....

Bigfoot are what they are.

They possess their own set of physical characteristics.

And they are characterized by their behavior.

How science chooses to define and catalogue them changes none of this.

It won't change them a bit.

[Guest]

I too, found the twin thing crazy, but something in my gut says he would hedge his bets if he thought their was anyway she might be right.

Hardly. It's in his best interests that the study be rejected. Once BF is established, it becomes the provenance of the pros/Nat Geo/etc. No more "good old boys" running round in the woods flashing lights everywhere and yelling back and forth on walkie talkies.

Well you already heard Disotell mention the contamination and now with the Sierra results we are seeing the same thing. He predicted this even before the Sierra shootings took place so love him or hate him he has a good track record at predicting how things play out.

So how does Disotell say that we should be able to distinguish between "contamination" and a novel near-human primate?

[Guest]

He doesn't. Because unlike "some people" he is not assuming it is a near-human primate.

[Guest]

As I pointed out...provenance is going to haunt just about any study that can't legitimately *point* to a corporal being.

So DNA is what? Ectoplasmic manifestation? Spontaneously generated? Corporeal evidence (you need to look up the word "corporeal" by the way) comes from a corporeal source.

Mulder said:

So how does Disotell say that we should be able to distinguish between "contamination" and a novel near-human primate?

He doesn't. Because unlike "some people" he is not assuming it is a near-human primate.

Well, then he has a huge problem. If the claim is human/near-human hybrid, the issue of distinguishing between "contamination" and hybridization becomes central to the evaluation of the claim.

Disotell needs to do his homework and address the issue rather than begging it if he wants to be taken seriously.

[Guest Tontar]

Maybe I missed it, but isn't today the day where someone says, "it's Thursday again..."

Weeks have turned into months, again.

[Guest]

Surely Melba would have extracted the DNA from the centre of smejas sample where it would be pure and free from contamination. As with Justin's other sample that was tested positive for bear and Justin's DNA, well to me that shows that the DNA was not extracted this way but taken from the surface or close to of the sample where contamination was possible.

Also I mentioned before . I wonder if anyone has asked Justin what knife he used to divide up the samples. Maybe he used his hunting knife which would most prob have been used on bears ????

[Guest Theagenes]

Surely Melba would have extracted the DNA from the centre of smejas sample where it would be pure and free from contamination. As with Justin's other sample that was tested positive for bear and Justin's DNA, well to me that shows that the DNA was not extracted this way but taken from the surface or close to of the sample where contamination was possible.

Also I mentioned before . I wonder if anyone has asked Justin what knife he used to divide up the samples. Maybe he used his hunting knife which would most prob have been used on bears ????

That is a very good point.

[Guest]

Maybe I missed it, but isn't today the day where someone says, "it's Thursday again..."

Weeks have turned into months, again.

It seems to me that this report has alot in common with the Janice Carter story;

- its been going on for years

- the principle if VERY convincing

- says bigfoot is real

- Igor and Erickson are attached

- habitation is involved

- TV, books, movies, t-shirts, etc

- proof is always on the way, but never delivered