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

[Guest mitchw]

sorry folks, fat finger error

Edited August 17, 2011 by mitchw

[Hairy Man]

I plan on being there just as I do every year at that time. I will spend two weeks in the surrounding mountains researching all the same area's I have in the past.

Can't wait to talk to Scott Nelson and Dr. Meldrum again. It is Dr Meldrum's 4th time speaking at the honobia conference. It will be Scott Nelson's third time I believe. Scott just spent the whole month of July in the Sierra's with Ron Morehead.Scott and Ron have become great friends with scott taking many trips out to spend time with Ron in the old deer camp where the sierra recordings were obtained. Scott usually updates his presentations if anything new has happened on his outings there.

The Honobia festival was a yearly event in honobia. It was more of a celebration of this creature being known by the people who live in the area. Yes it was more of a festival atmosphere. It was only then, after a few years as a festival that it was turned into more of a conference by the MABRC. Taking an event that was already established, then turning it into an informative conference.

Maybe Melba Ketchum will speak there because she wants to.

Jeff Meldrum isn't speaking at the Honobia Conference this year - he'll be at the TBRC Conference the exact same weekend with Ian Redmond. It's a competing weekend - either you go to Honobia and hear some new news or you go to Tyler and see some cool dudes....

[Guest]

You are correct Hairyman, My mistake. Meldrum will not attend this year, but has spoken at the Honobia conference 3 times in the past I think.

[BobbyO]

Excuse my ignorance & going off topic a little ( but not completely ) but why would there be 2 x BF Conferences/Gatherings/Symposiums, in the same area, in 2 States that Border each other, with some pretty high profile Speakers within the Community, on the same weekend ??

I find that pretty crazy actually & don't undertsand it at all..

HM, please tell me you said it tongue in cheek that it's a " competing weekend " ??

[Guest Gunny]

Just a thought... October 1st is the beginning of the Fed fiscal year. Lots of folks lining up for grant funding...gotta start the show and tell sometime in order to get the dollars to continue research. With so many uses for DNA research these days...finding new techniques to extract and maintain purity of samples, etc., well, it takes funding. Just something I've been pondering... I'm probably way off target anyway.

[slabdog]

Totally illogical premise.

If you have BF DNA, you have BF from whence the DNA came. DNA doesn't appear out of the morning dew like manna from heaven you know.

Totally illogical?

If we had deer DNA that we OBSERVED being extracted from a deer...then it would be illogical not to definitively say that it is deer DNA.

We don't have that in this case.

Again, I'm not saying that, if true, the Ketchum DNA study won't be ground breaking...it's just that without the body it will not be definitive proof to the scientific community.

[Guest]

Totally illogical?

If we had deer DNA that we OBSERVED being extracted from a deer...then it would be illogical not to definitively say that it is deer DNA.

We don't have that in this case.

Again, I'm not saying that, if true, the Ketchum DNA study won't be ground breaking...it's just that without the body it will not be definitive proof to the scientific community.

So if I understand correctly, the best we could come up with would be "unknown primate" DNA or something along those lines. It would really help if all or most of the samples came up as the same "unknown primate". Speaking of that, is anyone testing the hair from the Canadian Cabin against these samples? And if we did determine "unknown primate" DNA exists across North America, how far of a leap would it be to go from that to "sasquatch"? Would "unkown primate" DNA in conjunction with (supposedly) better-than-PG footage allow us to determine it's "sasquatch" without a body? Or do we still need a body?

[Guest HairyGreek]

So if I understand correctly, the best we could come up with would be "unknown primate" DNA or something along those lines. It would really help if all or most of the samples came up as the same "unknown primate". Speaking of that, is anyone testing the hair from the Canadian Cabin against these samples? And if we did determine "unknown primate" DNA exists across North America, how far of a leap would it be to go from that to "sasquatch"? Would "unkown primate" DNA in conjunction with (supposedly) better-than-PG footage allow us to determine it's "sasquatch" without a body? Or do we still need a body?

I think before we listen to what the skeptics of the world need, let's see what is really included in the DNA study as well as what the EP will be releasing in conjuction. No one who is speaking against the paper not proving anything has any idea what it will entail or what will be released in tandum. If the public accepts it, I think you will be suprised how quickly science will change their tunes. Especially when they hear the magic phrase "research funding".

Edited August 17, 2011 by HairyGreek

[southernyahoo]

So if I understand correctly, the best we could come up with would be "unknown primate" DNA or something along those lines. It would really help if all or most of the samples came up as the same "unknown primate". Speaking of that, is anyone testing the hair from the Canadian Cabin against these samples? And if we did determine "unknown primate" DNA exists across North America, how far of a leap would it be to go from that to "sasquatch"? Would "unkown primate" DNA in conjunction with (supposedly) better-than-PG footage allow us to determine it's "sasquatch" without a body? Or do we still need a body?

Niceguyjon, There will be people that reject any evidence that doesn't match what they believe. They are in the habit of rejecting science , only when they want to, or believe it wasn't satisfactorily done. They can dream up things that coulda, shoulda,woulda been done if............this was a real study blah blah blah. DNA can place a sample on the tree of life where it belongs, with a calculated time since divergence of some known and the knowledge of the knowns gives us a basic description. If you want to add in provenance of the samples , then that adds another dynamic to explain away.

[Guest]

If the public accepts it, I think you will be suprised how quickly science will change their tunes. Especially when they hear the magic phrase "research funding".

I think you hit the nail on the head. What's funny is that once that happens, then he is in the realm of "zoology" instead of "cryptozoology", which means he was ours when everyone who believed in him were kooks, and he's "theirs" when he's a real animal. Oh well, maybe I'll switch over to "zoology" too, to make sure to stay on the winning side

[Guest]

There's no bar-raising and no goal-post shifting.

Every extant, multicellular organism that is currently recognized by "mainstream science" has a published description somewhere in the scientific literature and a physical specimen curated somewhere. The natural sciences have followed this paradigm since Linnaeus published the first edition of Systema Naturae in 1735. Yes, in recent years, DNA analysis has revealed genetic divergence among populations of species that has led to the description of new species from within those populations. To my knowledge, we have not (yet!) had a new, multicellular species described solely from DNA analysis of suspected tissue. (The reason is most likely due to the singularly unlikely event that one could have tissue without having a specimen - but I'll leave that for another discussion.)

So, if Ketchum is to propose a description of "bigfoot" based solely on DNA analysis of putative bigfoot tissue, she is in uncharted waters. People need to understand that if a bigfoot description were published in a leading journal based just on the DNA - i.e., no specimen - this would be a scientific first. This would mean that the journal editors would be bending over backwards to accommodate the paper, because such a thing has never been done. I read tragic irony on the BFF rather frequently when people post statements to the effect that journals and scientific societies are biased against bigfoot papers. The reality is that if a journal publishes a bigfoot paper in the absence of a specimen, it demonstrates a decidedly PRO-bigfoot bias in that journal.

Let's say Ketchum manages to publish a paper on DNA analysis of samples that occupy a unique position on the phylogenetic tree of the hominins. In other words, the DNA definitely indicates a new species, closely related to humans and other apes, but also undeniably not one of the species with which we are familiar. To me (personally), this would constitute extremely compelling evidence that there is some otherwise undescribed humanlike creature out there. I suspect that many of my scientific colleagues would also be very impressed with such a discovery. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the one paper is a slam-dunk for the whole of mainstream science. Before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature accepts the description and recognizes the new species, they would very likely want to see similar results independently replicated. When that happens, we can finally consider the work to have gone "mainstream" in science.

So there can be a difference between what any one individual scientist (or journal) will accept and what can be considered established by mainstream science. If all you're looking for is individual scientists to be convinced that there are bigfoots out there, you already have that, and have had that for decades. If you're looking to truly mainstream bigfoot, it doesn't happen the day Ketchum publishes her paper. There's a proven process with a good 275-year history behind it.

[Guest]

Let's say Ketchum manages to publish a paper on DNA analysis of samples that occupy a unique position on the phylogenetic tree of the hominins. In other words, the DNA definitely indicates a new species, closely related to humans and other apes, but also undeniably not one of the species with which we are familiar. To me (personally), this would constitute extremely compelling evidence that there is some otherwise undescribed humanlike creature out there. I suspect that many of my scientific colleagues would also be very impressed with such a discovery. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the one paper is a slam-dunk for the whole of mainstream science. Before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature accepts the description and recognizes the new species, they would very likely want to see similar results independently replicated. When that happens, we can finally consider the work to have gone "mainstream" in science.

So there can be a difference between what any one individual scientist (or journal) will accept and what can be considered established by mainstream science. If all you're looking for is individual scientists to be convinced that there are bigfoots out there, you already have that, and have had that for decades. If you're looking to truly mainstream bigfoot, it doesn't happen the day Ketchum publishes her paper. There's a proven process with a good 275-year history behind it.

Once again, this sounds perfectly reasonable. Would you not agree that if this were to play out as you've described it, that BF would cease to be such a "taboo" subject in science? The results you've described above would certainly warrant a closer look by science as a whole, would it not?

[Guest mitchw]

I wonder what is meant by 'specimen.' Does that mean the whole or part of a creature? How about blood, hair, a toenail, and/or a bone? Fossilized remains of primates support the past existence of those species, so I wonder if something short of a Bigfoot 'Puttin' on the Ritz' will have scientific merit. What will be necessary to get mainstream study and funding going?

[Guest]

Once again, this sounds perfectly reasonable. Would you not agree that if this were to play out as you've described it, that BF would cease to be such a "taboo" subject in science? The results you've described above would certainly warrant a closer look by science as a whole, would it not?

Thanks NiceGuyJon. Contrary to how my posts are perceived by some people, I do my best to inject reason into these discussions.

I disagree that bigfoot is a taboo subject. The reason more scientists don't engage in ostensible "bigfoot research" is that they are not confident that there are any data to collect. Under the Ketchum publication scenario I described, I'm sure some more scientists would take up the mantle of a dedicated search to obtain a specimen and - this is a huge part of the package - there'd be some legitimate grant money to fund such work. This would not be a lure for most scientists, however, because the likelihood of bagging that elusive squatch when so many have already tried for so long is extremely low. Our bread and butter rests on obtaining grant money and publishing papers. Both of those things have to work for a research program to be successful (at least in the university system).

[Guest]

There's no bar-raising and no goal-post shifting.

Every extant, multicellular organism that is currently recognized by "mainstream science" has a published description somewhere in the scientific literature and a physical specimen curated somewhere. The natural sciences have followed this paradigm since Linnaeus published the first edition of Systema Naturae in 1735. Yes, in recent years, DNA analysis has revealed genetic divergence among populations of species that has led to the description of new species from within those populations. To my knowledge, we have not (yet!) had a new, multicellular species described solely from DNA analysis of suspected tissue. (The reason is most likely due to the singularly unlikely event that one could have tissue without having a specimen - but I'll leave that for another discussion.)

So, if Ketchum is to propose a description of "bigfoot" based solely on DNA analysis of putative bigfoot tissue, she is in uncharted waters. People need to understand that if a bigfoot description were published in a leading journal based just on the DNA - i.e., no specimen - this would be a scientific first. This would mean that the journal editors would be bending over backwards to accommodate the paper, because such a thing has never been done. I read tragic irony on the BFF rather frequently when people post statements to the effect that journals and scientific societies are biased against bigfoot papers. The reality is that if a journal publishes a bigfoot paper in the absence of a specimen, it demonstrates a decidedly PRO-bigfoot bias in that journal.

Let's say Ketchum manages to publish a paper on DNA analysis of samples that occupy a unique position on the phylogenetic tree of the hominins. In other words, the DNA definitely indicates a new species, closely related to humans and other apes, but also undeniably not one of the species with which we are familiar. To me (personally), this would constitute extremely compelling evidence that there is some otherwise undescribed humanlike creature out there. I suspect that many of my scientific colleagues would also be very impressed with such a discovery. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the one paper is a slam-dunk for the whole of mainstream science. Before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature accepts the description and recognizes the new species, they would very likely want to see similar results independently replicated. When that happens, we can finally consider the work to have gone "mainstream" in science.

So there can be a difference between what any one individual scientist (or journal) will accept and what can be considered established by mainstream science. If all you're looking for is individual scientists to be convinced that there are bigfoots out there, you already have that, and have had that for decades. If you're looking to truly mainstream bigfoot, it doesn't happen the day Ketchum publishes her paper. There's a proven process with a good 275-year history behind it.

So, putting two and two together, one could deduce from your statement that if indeed Dr. Ketchum's paper is under peer review and is to appear in a scientific journal, then she must have a specimen. No such claims have been made, but if we're to take Dr. Ketchum's "slam-dunk" statement at face value, then there's really only one thing that would qualify as a "slam-dunk." After all, if a journal has never in 275 years published a paper describing a new species of any kind without a specimen, why would they start with something as controversial as Bigfoot. Is that a fair assumption or am I way off base?

Given Dr. Ketchum's extreme caution about making public statements about the paper, isn't it also logical to assume that she contacted the journal in question and discussed the presentation at this or any other BF conference, and if they signed off on it, doesn't that protect her "credibility?"