The Ketchum Report

[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."

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 Again, this is just a sampling of analyses that have been published; there has been additional unpublished work on such material as well: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.

Yet the institution of Science continues to insist that there is no evidence for BF, Sas...you cannot escape that fact.

They will not engage the evidence, even when it's presented to them on the proverbial silver platter.

That is the ONLY logical conclusion we can draw from the inherantly contradictory situation you have set up.

Implicit in my question is the issue, that given the fact that the DNA was "identical" to human with the stated exception not ruling out human, why would he or anyone else jump to the conclusion that it was less likely DNA from a human than from a Bigfoot. (And what is Bigfoot, exactly?: A descendant of Gigantopithecus, a relict neanderthal, a surviving homo erectus, etc. These candidates are better explanations for the finding of human blood on a screw trap? Really? ) It seems that folks in the Bigfoot community are so acclimated to the idea of Bigfoot, that mundane explanations seem odd and chimerical explanations seem mundane.

If one cannot imagine a scenario of how human blood came to be on a screw trap on the front porch of a cabin, then ...........

As to the documentation of the foot size on the screw trap, could you refer me to a scientific report or discussion that truly documents, without dissent or question, the size of the foot? What you saw on Monsterquest was pandering for dramatic effect. Dr. Meldrum should have sealed the screw trap as potential evidence for later examination, instead of holding it up to the camera and marking on it. No doubt the producers wanted something more dramatic than Dr. Meldrum securing it for later examination.

Which would have shown the same thing: the foot was HUGE...much larger than normal human feet.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Yet the institution of Science continues to insist that there is no evidence for BF, Sas...you cannot escape that fact.

They will not engage the evidence, even when it's presented to them on the proverbial silver platter.

How do publications by 16 authors in 5 journals equate to science "not engaging" with the evidence? Do you need something like two more authors and one more journal before you'll submit to that which is plainly obvious to the rest of the world: multiple scientists have examined bigfoot evidence and multiple journals have published their papers.

[Guest]

How do publications by 16 authors in 5 journals equate to science "not engaging" with the evidence? Do you need something like two more authors and one more journal before you'll submit to that which is plainly obvious to the rest of the world: multiple scientists have examined bigfoot evidence and multiple journals have published their papers.

And yet BF remains unadmitted by institutional science, which continues to insist that there is no scientific evidence for BF.

No matter how much smoke you try to blow, Sas, you cannot logically or factually state that those two positions are compatable.

[JDL]

Professional courtesy from one extraterrestrial horn-dog to another . . .

Had to plus that one.

[Guest]

And yet BF remains unadmitted by institutional science, which continues to insist that there is no scientific evidence for BF.

No matter how much smoke you try to blow, Sas, you cannot logically or factually state that those two positions are compatable.

Mulder, how is providing actual references to actual papers in peer-reviewed journals "blowing smoke?"

Your bias on this is about as concealed as the pyramids at Giza. What you really mean when you write that science "won't engage the evidence", is that "science" has not proclaimed the existence of bigfoot based on the evidence that has been examined. To deny that scientists (multiple scientists) have "engaged" some of that evidence (I'd call analyzing the evidence and publishing papers on the analysis "engaging") when I've provided actual references for journal articles showing that denial to be baseless is making you look rather foolish (and kinda weird, I must admit).

If you'd like to dive into those papers and point out their errors, go for it.

[edited for double post]

Edited January 6, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

"parn is this, parn is that."

same old ad hom and dodging the issues. You did come up with a new ad hom: that I did TOO MUCH checking up on a TV program. LOL. I'll have to file that one under "desperate measures."

maybe they could have found the culprit had they investigated. Maybe they couldn't have. A bunch of rich anglos going into a tribal settlement to investigate a crime that happened long before. There's a recipe for cooperation....or getting their butts kicked. As if either the anglos or the residents really wanted to find the guy...

Behold ! We found that axe your grinding ! Thank you for proving my point and Have A Great DAY !

[southernyahoo]

Parn, the ransacking is reported to have occured in 2002, which led to the screw board being placed in front of the door. Foot perforation occured in 2005. Sasquatch attack 1 was filmed in 2006 where Meldrum and Nelson collect the samples.

I suspect the extensive damage was done because the perp (or his pals) was plenty mad after perforating a foot.

Ooops.

wow...talk about blind assumptions? Have you even watched the program? You seem to know nothing about it. I paint myself as someone who has watched the show and read the transcript multiple times, and talked with people who were involved. You may want to do the same and then come back with some informed comments. In the meantime, imho you'd do well not to exhibit your lack of knowledge of the issues. Of course, you are free to do whatever you like.

Something is a-rye here.

[gigantor]

Parn, you got pwned... :lol:

Edited January 7, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

i SPOKE TO THE OWNER OF THE CABIN AND ASKED IF WHEN HE WATCHED THE COMPLETE VIDEO IF HE SAW ANY PRINTS INSIDE AROUND THE WOOD STOVE THAT WAS KNOCKED OVER AND ASH AND SOOT SPREAD ABOUT ON THE FLOOR. hE SAID HE DOESN'T REMEMBER ANY PRINTS BUT HE MISSPLACED THE TAPE AND COULDN'T WATCH IT TO MAKE SURE. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S PRESENTED ON MONSTERQUEST THE REFRIGERATOR DESTROYED, TOILET PULLED UP WOODSTOVE FLIPPED OVER WAS NOT DONE BY A HUMAN BEING CONSIDERING IT WAS LATE OCTOBER AND SNOW WAS FLYING AND HIS PLANE WAS THE LAST IN THERE THAT WINTER. YOU DON'T WALK A HUNDRED MILES INTO THIS ISOLATED PLACE TO VANDALIZE A CABIN.

I believe 'im yo... I don't know why but I do.

[southernyahoo]

Hair falls out. Why would they need to smash their head on a board.

Jason Beckert, M.Sc. - Concluded that the hair was human.

http://www.microtrac...rt/jbeckert.htm

Beckert showed portions of the hair that was dark brown in color and a portion he thought was bleached. The bleached portion,as he called it, was basicly clear or white. It seems odd that a person who has natural dark hair would bleach it white. I have to wonder if perhaps the white portion was the function of the hair turning grey. Maybe grey hair takes a dye as easily as bleached hair does.

Mehrdad Hajibabaei, PhD - didn't find animal DNA (including primate DNA) the samples quite degraded.

http://ibarcode.org/...ei/?page_id=193

Hajibabaei used a broad primer that targets a very small segment of DNA (100bp) (Barcode method.) He wouldn't have known he was looking at squatch DNA even if he did get primate DNA.

This paper outlines the problems with it.

http://spectrum.libr..._Genome2006.pdf

It is interesting to note that the human–

chimp–gorilla trichotomy is still not resolved in this figure.

An alternative to relaxing the bootstrap cut-off value is to retain

the 100% value and increasing the length of the sequence

used for the barcode. Therefore, we extended the

barcode sequence to 1500 bp and, as expected, the use of

longer sequences resulted in the resolution of the 2 species

of chimp, even at the higher bootstrap cut-off value (Fig. 4).

This result highlights the fact that there is no single, “correctâ€

length for a DNA barcode. Although longer sequences

give greater resolution, unexpectedly short sequences provide

excellent resolution at the species level. Thus it is far

more efficient to use very short sequences for the initial

screening of large numbers of samples. Difficult cases, owing

to recent divergences and (or) low rates of molecular

evolution, can be resolved by extending the barcode sequence.

[Guest exnihilo]

There are reports of game cams being removed or destroyed. Perhaps that may account for the instances when BF is caught unawares. Of course, it is my opinion that a physical hypothesis must include intelligence and culture that is similar to homo sapiens sapiens, to go along with night, stealth, and montane physical adaptations. Otherwise they'd be 'in the bag' already.

And if they are all of those things, they could be expected to have an appreciation of man's technology - and its frequently diabolical purposes.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Beckert showed portions of the hair that was dark brown in color and a portion he thought was bleached. The bleached portion,as he called it, was basicly clear or white. It seems odd that a person who has natural dark hair would bleach it white. I have to wonder if perhaps the white portion was the function of the hair turning grey. Maybe grey hair takes a dye as easily as bleached hair does.

Yes, the natural bleach job some of us are being subjected to. :]

That grey hair growing in (reduced pigment - declining levels of melanin)...also clear/white due to the lack of pigment - no melanin. Like our fingernails.

Could be, Bigfoots likes gooseberries?

It wouldn't have hurt my feelings if he had of elaborated on "characteristic texture of bleached hair." or exactly what region. (this is why these shows drive me nuts)

Bigfoot doesn't age; it just stays blurry. :]

Just an interesting link:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867409003742

Hajibabaei used a broad primer that targets a very small segment of DNA (100bp) (Barcode method.) He wouldn't have known he was looking at squatch DNA even if he did get primate DNA.

This paper outlines the problems with it.

http://spectrum.libr..._Genome2006.pdf

The problem, in the first place; the samples (if in fact, were from an animal - including us/human or unknown species - Still a wee ways from phylogenetic relationships and genetic proximity between humans and Bigfoot.) were so badly degraded that this test was a shot in the dark, so to speak, to find DNA (if any) was present.

[Guest Alpinist]

my opinion that a physical hypothesis must include intelligence and culture that is similar to homo sapiens sapiens, to go along with night, stealth, and montane physical adaptations.

Factor in gigantic size and "knock out" mental powers too. You have no chance if it goes sideways on you.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Alpinist

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

GrayJay made a well needed redirect above. I still see some back and forth about/by a few, and some shots are still being placed here or there.

I was tempted to close this one down for good but it would be a shame IMO as the topic is worthy and there's alot of participants that have been having some great discussion as well.

So for the good of those members who have graciously stayed within the rules and guidelines of the forum, we'll keep this one open. It's not fair that some should suffer for the actions of the problem few.

Thanks to those of you determined to keep the Bigfoot Forums a great place for discussion. Your professional conduct is appreciated and admired my friends, more than you know.

If the cheap shots persist between the few, warning level increases and suspensions will be awarded for the past offenses that were overlooked in addition of those actions taken for a new violation.

Chris B.

[Guest]

To deny that scientists (multiple scientists) have "engaged" some of that evidence (I'd call analyzing the evidence and publishing papers on the analysis "engaging") when I've provided actual references for journal articles showing that denial to be baseless

And yet Science STILL insists there is no scientific evidence. We hear that from Skeptics all the time. Both statements cannot be correct, unless Science is refusing to engage the evidence that you yourself admit exists.

It's that simple.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Mulder