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

[Guest HairyGreek]

Just out of curiousty, could you provide an example of this happening elsewhere? I am sure one exists, but it would help to put your argument in context. From science to hoax.

[Guest slimwitless]

When you have a lot on the line professionally, it's easy to take a step over the edge.

So you think the professional damage from hoaxing would somehow be preferable to just saying none of the submitted samples are sasquatch? The former strikes me as career suicide. The latter is merely a disappointment to the minute fraction of the population that's even aware of this study.

[indiefoot]

When you have a lot on the line professionally, it's easy to take a step over the edge.

Tim B.

When multiple samples of multiple types of tissue, hair, saliva, etc. are sent to multiple labs for testing. The results are then put in the form of a scientific paper for peer inspection and review, where exactly does the possibility of stepping over the edge creep into the scenario?

Can you explain how stepping over the edge might conceivably have taken place here? "Taking a step over the edge" implies an overt act of some kind to influence the findings.

[Guest parnassus]

A negative study, meaning that the samples are not from BF? is that what you mean?

Meaning that nothing of the nature of nonhuman primate DNA was found in a series of samples submitted as possible Bigfoot material by lay persons. People can draw whatever conclusions they like from that. Paulides already has.

If your theory is correct both Ketchum and Paulides would have to be lying to their supporters and confidants. If they're lying, they have to be actively involved in a hoax. If they're actively involved in a hoax, your theory can't be correct.

I still see only three possibilities:

1. Hoax/Scam
2. Mistaken Identity
3. Discovery/Identification

I can't find the motive for #1 (especially given the number of people involved). If #2 is true, the mistaken identity is ongoing and has slipped past outside reviewers (IMO). As for option #3, well...

I don't know. Maybe we're all part of a very large behavioral study.

Why would you say they are lying? I think Ketchum has backed off from her previous statements, but I don't think she is lying. When she says there is something there, couldn't she mean, like Paulides and Stubstad, that maybe "Bigfoot" is human?

She didn't give a real concrete reason for not going to Honobia...what she said was kind of a dodge, not a lie. I certainly don't think that the Planck sent her plane tickets, but it wasn't she that came up with that **** n bull story, so you can't blame her for that.

I don't understand your #2.

I do think that the Sierra kill story is ...well, a tall tale told by a good storyteller. I can't explain why he is doing it, other than whatever motivates jokers. I imagine that Ketchum readily identified that as a common animal, and is just not revealing things right now. That may be the only attempted hoax in this deal, though I still have my suspicions about Paulides (which have not been substantiated to this point).

So you think the professional damage from hoaxing would somehow be preferable to just saying none of the submitted samples are sasquatch? The former strikes me as career suicide. The latter is merely a disappointment to the minute fraction of the population that's even aware of this study.

This idea that Ketchums statements are somehow secret, strikes me as odd, in this day when people are getting fired every day for things they wrote on a supposedly private Facebook page. When she is going to testify for one side at a trial, don't you think the other side will google her? When an attorney or a vet or a breeder is looking for a DNA expert don't you think they will google her? I mean, I don't think she has done anything bad in this effort other than going off a little halfcocked...but nothing on the Internet is a secret, and anyone who backgrounds her will see it.

[Guest slimwitless]

Why would you say they are lying? I think Ketchum has backed off from her previous statements, but I don't think she is lying. When she says there is something there, couldn't she mean, like Paulides and Stubstad, that maybe "Bigfoot" is human?

She didn't give a real concrete reason for not going to Honobia...what she said was kind of a dodge, not a lie. I certainly don't think that the Planck sent her plane tickets, but it wasn't she that came up with that **** n bull story, so you can't blame her for that.

I don't understand your #2.

I do think that the Sierra kill story is ...well, a tall tale told by a good storyteller. I can't explain why he is doing it, other than whatever motivates jokers. I imagine that Ketchum readily identified that as a common animal, and is just not revealing things right now. That may be the only attempted hoax in this deal, though I still have my suspicions about Paulides (which have not been substantiated to this point).

In July, Ketchum told her supporters "I promise it will be worth the wait!!!" (her exclamation points, not mine). How is that backing off? Or are you saying she's backed off since July? I'd be interested in seeing those quotes. Do you think her supporters would interpret that rather excited statement to mean she's discovered BF is human?

#2 is part of your theory. She thought she had something initially but misinterpreted the results.

As far as the Sierra kills, it's pretty clear to me that Randles believes Ketchum told him the sample tested out as BF (and if by that she meant human, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been posting here). If she led him to believe it was BF, it would be a lie under your scenario (to answer your first question). I agree with you that I don't think she's lying...either in her public or private statements.

[Guest HairyGreek]

As far as the Sierra kills, it's pretty clear to me that Randles believes Ketchum told him the sample tested out as BF (and if by that she meant human, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been posting here).

OK, slimmy, you and parn can both answer this. I would like to hear it from two different sides anyways. How exactly does something test out as a BF if we don't have anything to compare it to? What would it have to look like to decisively show what you are saying? Don't we still need a body first? Really, can they prove anything but multiple DNA samples showing the exact same thing which is basically an unknown/ uncataloged animal/primate?

Edited October 7, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest slimwitless]

This idea that Ketchums statements are somehow secret, strikes me as odd, in this day when people are getting fired every day for things they wrote on a supposedly private Facebook page. When she is going to testify for one side at a trial, don't you think the other side will google her? When an attorney or a vet or a breeder is looking for a DNA expert don't you think they will google her? I mean, I don't think she has done anything bad in this effort other than going off a little halfcocked...but nothing on the Internet is a secret, and anyone who backgrounds her will see it.

We're not in disagreement here. I was responding to the poster that suggested she may be hoaxing to cover for the fact she misinterpreted the initial results. The cover-up (hoax) would ultimately be far more damaging than admitting a mistake and telling the truth. It's true a mistake like that would be damaging for an expert witness but the consequences would pale in comparison to having your name bandied about with the likes of Tom Biscardi.

Edited October 7, 2011 by slimwitless

[Guest HairyGreek]

This idea that Ketchums statements are somehow secret, strikes me as odd, in this day when people are getting fired every day for things they wrote on a supposedly private Facebook page. When she is going to testify for one side at a trial, don't you think the other side will google her? When an attorney or a vet or a breeder is looking for a DNA expert don't you think they will google her? I mean, I don't think she has done anything bad in this effort other than going off a little halfcocked...but nothing on the Internet is a secret, and anyone who backgrounds her will see it.

I wouldn't advertise my extra-curricular activities with Bigfoot either...unless something became of it. If it didn't I would make a quite announcement somewhere like this board and just let it trickle down. After this, if someone brought it up to me, I would say "Oh, I was just sent some samples to test and I agreed. Think nothing of it".

I don't think it is hard to see that some of this NDA stuff may be to protect her rep until the jury is in and I can't say I blame her. Would you?

[Guest Cervelo]

I'll jump in! The "shopping has begun" their trying to find someone that's going to agree with their conclusion. I would guess this is not unusual, but the subject matter is, thats what's going to cause it to unravel. They need a well known organization to support the findings but its unlikely a high profile organization will support the conclusion even if they agree IMO. Gotta have a body!

[Guest slimwitless]

OK, slimmy, you and parn can both answer this. I would like to hear it from two different sides anyways. How exactly does something test out as a BF if we don't have anything to compare it to? What would it have to look like to decisively show what you are saying? Don't we still need a body first? Really, can they prove anything but multiple DNA samples showing the exact same thing which is basically an unknown/ uncataloged animal/primate?

This has been discussed quite a bit. If you can tell it's in the hominid line but it isn't human or some known primate then that's pretty significant. It's true you can't tell much about the underlying morphology (at least not yet) but I don't think it's unreasonable to correlate unknown primate DNA from North America to thousands of purported sightings of a large bipedal, hairy hominid. The thing is though, you don't have to make that correlation to make an significant discovery. That's my read on it. I'm not a geneticist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Guest HairyGreek]

LOL! Thanks for that slimmy. Loved the last line too. I'm trying to decide where I stand on the kill/no kill argument. I have been thinking about it again recently and norseman's recent statements in another thread have my mind going. I know this has been discussed before. I was hoping to get a terse definitive statement which you just provided from one perspective. I would like to hear the other side though.

[TimB]

Can you explain how stepping over the edge might conceivably have taken place here? "Taking a step over the edge" implies an overt act of some kind to influence the findings.

I haven't said anything about anything specific. Due to the nature of the "gotcha" aspect of the rules on this board, I wouldn't had I had something in mind. But in all sincerity I wasn't thinking of anything in particular.

Tim B.

[Guest]

If your theory is correct both Ketchum and Paulides would have to be lying to their supporters and confidants. If they're lying, they have to be actively involved in a hoax. If they're actively involved in a hoax, your theory can't be correct.

I still see only three possibilities:

1. Hoax/Scam
2. Mistaken Identity
3. Discovery/Identification

I can't find the motive for #1 (especially given the number of people involved). If #2 is true, the mistaken identity is ongoing and has slipped past outside reviewers (IMO). As for option #3, well...

I don't know. Maybe we're all part of a very large behavioral study.

If it's a hoax or scam then it started 40-50(?) years ago with the PGF.

There is too much smoke for there not to be a fire someplace, with too many credible reports by intelligent people who stand to lose rather than gain from their testimony about their encounters, plus remember this creature is being reported all *around* the world with only a very few exceptions in isolated island nations.

Something does exist throughout the world , and I hope some day soon we will all know what that something really is.

[Guest parnassus]

OK, slimmy, you and parn can both answer this. I would like to hear it from two different sides anyways. How exactly does something test out as a BF if we don't have anything to compare it to? What would it have to look like to decisively show what you are saying? Don't we still need a body first? Really, can they prove anything but multiple DNA samples showing the exact same thing which is basically an unknown/ uncataloged animal/primate?

Ballpark: If the sequencing of the sample mtDNA shows greater than 120 base pairs different from human, and yet not a known animal, then you have something.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Thanks Parn. It is much appreciated.