Dr. Melba Ketchum Schedule To Speak About Sasquatch Dna On October 1, 2011

[Guest]

I actually think Paulides and Ketchum are on the same page. Erickson looks like that odd man out on the study. And Paulides is billed as a former law enforcement officer, so you would think evidence collection is his organizations strong suit.

BTW - If there's a specimen that includes flesh, hair and bones, doesn't that make your objections/observations moot? Not saying that's what they have. I'm just trying to determine where your tipping point is.

There is a relevant problem with Paulides: he is virtually zoologically illiterate. Consider this from The Hoopa Project -- ""There are significant differences in primates. There are the great apes, huge and powerful, and the orangutans, smaller and less powerful." Huh?

He is impressed with the fact that his NA witnesses described Bigfoot as basically large hairy humans. He does not consider a sociological or folkloric reason for these descriptions. For instance, historically, Native Americans have their folk stories of giant hairy Indian tribes, while Westerners have their folklore reflecting pre-Darwin hairy men, and post-Darwin, Darwinian man-apes or relic bipedal-advanced giant apes.

Instead of considering these sophisticated solutions, Paulides searches old news accounts to try to find why the Hoopa Project Bigfoot look so human. He thinks he finds a partial solution in an account of a seven foot tall young man who runs away from a CCC camp in the 1930's and lives in the wild. Did he mate with whatisits to give Bigfoot human genes, Paulides ponders.

We can't overlook the fact that Paulides is putting a lot of faith in an old newspaper article, or that he is making quite a leap in imagination in linking this story to a sasquatch/human gene pool. These types of reasoning make me suspicious of what the DNA report will conclude. I hope my suspicions will be unfounded.

[Guest]

I'm not following the logic of this, specimens for this study were submitted from all over the country that never went through Paulides. The results will be the deciding factor as more than one lab was involved as well as more than one sample site. Did I miss something?

[Guest HairyGreek]

I'm not following the logic of this, specimens for this study were submitted from all over the country that never went through Paulides. The results will be the deciding factor as more than one lab was involved as well as more than one sample site. Did I miss something?

Jodie, please stop using common sense. We are trying to snip at each other and you are ruining the fun!

[Guest]

ote name='Jodie' timestamp='1314148700' post='94267']

I'm not following the logic of this, specimens for this study were submitted from all over the country that never went through Paulides. The results will be the deciding factor as more than one lab was involved as well as more than one sample site. Did I miss something?

Jodie,

No, you didn't miss anything. The fault lies with me; I didn't complete my line of reasoning.

Parnassus and I are skeptical about the existence of Bigfoot. He takes the position that Bigfoot simply does not exist. Maybe he is right. I take the position that we really do not know if Bigfoot exist or not and that it is an open issue, but an issue in which I have serious doubts about. Parnassus seems to be certain Bigfoot does not exist; certainty rarely enters my thoughts. For me, it is enough to say I doubt Bigfoot exists.

If we entertain Parnassus' certainty and my doubts, how then do we explain the Ketchum DNA report that alleges a virtual confirmation of Bigfoot's existence.

He and I are taking different approaches.

He is speculating that the DNA report will be something like this (my example): http://blog.modernme...pes-became-men/

He is suggesting the report may contain elements of a hoax that may go unrecognised originally.

I don't see it as a deliberate hoax by unknown parties. Instead, I think it is possible that the report will be ambiguous as it relates Bigfoot to the DNA. The report may point out something along this line: http://news.discover...rbreed-dna.html

The report may link the DNA to Bigfoot by using sighting reports and physical remains, such as hair. For instance, hair samples of an alleged Bigfoot were submitted that were taken from the site of Raven Ullibarri's sighting. Here is the forensic sketch of Ullibarri's Bigfoot, about midway down the article:

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/say-hello-to-the-bigfoot-people/

You can see a very human looking Bigfoot. Here is Paulides explanation of Ketchum's involvement and a clue to what the DNA will show: http://www.nabigfoot...igfoot_dna.html The report may indicate the difficulty with extracting DNA from the alleged hair shafts of Bigfoot, perhaps another argued diagnostic attribute of "true" sasquatch hair. Here is another article that refers to Paulides view about the true nature of Bigfoot and what the DNA shows: http://www.losgatoso...leases_new_book

Paulides confuses me. He seems to want a human Bigfoot. Sometimes he argues of there are two types of Bigfoot: Bigfoot and a bigfoot/human hybrid. Both, apparently, are more human than ape.

I'm suggesting the DNA report will have an open-to-interpretation analysis of the DNA as Bigfoot's, while offering chain of custody evidence supplied by Bigfoot researchers. This may be enough to pass peer review and enough to excite the Bigfoot community.

If I'm reading Parnassus correctly, he thinks the DNA report will be more conclusive than I imagine it will be. If so, then the report is somehow fraudulent (because there are no Bigfoot). Parnassus may be right, or maybe not.

We both may be surprised at the end result here. But we both are looking at this issue and speculating the way we do by taking it in the context of the larger, ongoing Bigfoot phenomena (consisting, in part, of hoaxes or gullible enthusiasms, for example). The past is prelude, or some such thing.

[Guest]

Thanks for the synopsis Jerrywayne.

[bipedalist]

In no way does Ketchum's study hang on every breath of Paulides investigation, get a grip people!

[Guest]

There is a relevant problem with Paulides: he is virtually zoologically illiterate. Consider this from The Hoopa Project -- ""There are significant differences in primates. There are the great apes, huge and powerful, and the orangutans, smaller and less powerful." Huh?

Ha - Orangutans are beasts. You don't even really have to know zoology to get that right. Not sure what he was thinking there.

BTW - My statement about Paulides and Ketchum being on the same page, I meant as far as when and how to take this thing public. I don't think Paulides is going to jump ahead of Ketchum as was suggested earlier.

[Guest parnassus]

Not exactly

I listened to Paulides and Ketchum last fall on internet radio and it sounded like Paulides was in charge. And he was talking about human Bigfoots, abduction, etc. He continues to do so and he sounds totally sure.

As I have said this is speculation.

I think that what happened is like what happened with the Snelgrove Lake sample. It was run by someone who didn't realize that Native American human DNA in that area was not exactly like that of other human folks.

The current deal:

Same script as Snelgrove, with a twist or two, but different players.

Another issue: given the history of difficulty finding bigfoot, the number of hoaxes and the number of other animals and humans in the woods, do people really think that a whole bunch of these samples came from Bigfoot? Not realistic. This talk about a number of Bigfoot positive samples tells me that they are on the wrong track, even if I believed in Bigfoot.

How did they get on the wrong track???

Well, I imagine it is a combination of factors like Snelgrove Lake and I better leave it at that.

Edited August 25, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest HairyGreek]

Parn, I need to understand something here.

1)You are saying that there is categorically no chance that there is a Bigfoot in any way, shape, or form, correct?

2)Even if there is some revelation from this DNA it was either purposely hoaxed or fraudulent through human error?

[Guest]

Parn- I've heard you say that numerous times before, but without knowing the details of how, who, what, when, and where regarding how all the samples were handled and tested how can you be so certain? Don't you think you ought to at least read what she wrote, when and if it is released, first?

[Hairy Man]

Did anyone hear David Paulides on Coast-to-Coast last night? He was only one for a few minutes in the first hour and he said the DNA project was 90 to 95% complete. My radio reception wasn't that good, but I believe he also said that six Ph.D.s were involved in writing the paper that was going to be (or is in?) peer review for publication in a major journal.

[Guest Forbig]

<br />Did anyone hear David Paulides on Coast-to-Coast last night?  He was only one for a few minutes in the first hour and he said the DNA project was 90 to 95% complete.  My radio reception wasn't that good, but I believe he also said that six Ph.D.s were involved in writing the paper that was going to be (or is in?) peer review for publication in a major journal.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I missed it but I'm so excited I could pee myself. I'm counting it down by the hours now.

[Guest slimwitless]

Did anyone hear David Paulides on Coast-to-Coast last night? He was only one for a few minutes in the first hour and he said the DNA project was 90 to 95% complete. My radio reception wasn't that good, but I believe he also said that six Ph.D.s were involved in writing the paper that was going to be (or is in?) peer review for publication in a major journal.

Thanks for the info. I'll have to see if the show is archived somewhere.

I also noticed Destination Truth is on Netflix. I've never seen that show but according to IMDB Melba Ketchum appears on two episodes. Are they worth watching?

[Guest parnassus]

Parn- I've heard you say that numerous times before, but without knowing the details of how, who, what, when, and where regarding how all the samples were handled and tested how can you be so certain? Don't you think you ought to at least read what she wrote, when and if it is released, first?

Straw man. How many times do I have to write "speculation." really. This board is 98 or so percent speculation woven around a light sprinkling of facts.

I've gone over this several times. It's connect the dots. Snelgrove Lake fiasco. Population genetics. Paulides statements. Paulides books, and Paulides- Ketchum internet radio show. Ketchum statements. Ketchums background. PaUlides background. The odds of suddenly obtaining multiple samples from across the country of a very very hard to find animal. The marketability of the "Bigfoot is human" story within the target demographic. Certain connections I have within the scientific community. The apparently truthful statement that at least two samples of mtDNA are human. The nonsensical "I had Bigfoots baby"/hybrid theories. A conviction that whatever Bigfoot is or isn't, it isn't a human.

( incidentally I do agree with Paulides that the NA legends and early newspaper accounts of wild men were describing modern humans.)

I may be completely off base. So may everyone else.

This is like the Friday night poker game. Everybody gets to make their bets before the hands are revealed. Some players think they can spot some "tells", and others play the odds. In the end somebody is right. The others say shut up and deal.

[Guest]

HairyMan, I heard him as well and i believe he said it was to be submitted for peer review soon........but don't quote me. lol