Bigfoot DNA

[Resume]

I happen to think that you folks are probably right about the fate of the Ketchum study, but you (nor I) have produced no evidence in support of the assertions made. This could be seen as judging others by one standard, and acting yourself (ourselves) to another. You (we) rightly require advocates to produce evidence in support of their claims, but could be said to be basing these claims of your (our) own on pretty flimsy "evidence".



I have always had a problem with the logic of this argument.

Substitute the word "zebra" for BF, and then tell me what the problem is. What is the issue with having witnessed the animal you are studying? Plenty of zoologists do that every day of the week. If Dr Ketchum has unimpeachable evidence in support of the existence of these creatures, then I can see no problem with her having claimed to have seen some of them.

Of course, if she (or anyone else) doesn't have the DNA evidence she claims, then we can take the personal observation reports as just another anecdote. But the anecdote itself has no (logical) influence on the voracity of her claim.

In my view, of course.

Mike

If someone claims to be observing any animal, it is an easy thing to for an independent observer to confirm. In a habituation scenario, objective confirming evidence would be rather a cinch.

Ketchum offered no corroboration for her claim.

None.

 

[The Shrike]

Drewbot = "nailed it"

 

[DennyT]

I happen to think that you folks are probably right about the fate of the Ketchum study, but you (nor I) have produced no evidence in support of the assertions made. This could be seen as judging others by one standard, and acting yourself (ourselves) to another. You (we) rightly require advocates to produce evidence in support of their claims, but could be said to be basing these claims of your (our) own on pretty flimsy "evidence".



I have always had a problem with the logic of this argument.

Substitute the word "zebra" for BF, and then tell me what the problem is. What is the issue with having witnessed the animal you are studying? Plenty of zoologists do that every day of the week. If Dr Ketchum has unimpeachable evidence in support of the existence of these creatures, then I can see no problem with her having claimed to have seen some of them.

Of course, if she (or anyone else) doesn't have the DNA evidence she claims, then we can take the personal observation reports as just another anecdote. But the anecdote itself has no (logical) influence on the voracity of her claim.

In my view, of course.

Mike

Mike, in case you didn't get the point of the zebra image: you are essence saying, "but if you assume bigfoot is real, then bigfoot is real." Thats begging the question.

You can weight the evidence however you wish and so can others. One can always argue that a proposition, even a geometrical proof, has not been proved to your satisfaction. Some people when pelted by poop will ask in some childlike way, hopefully, "when do I get the pony?".

Experience teaches us that most times in these circumstances there will be no pony forthcoming; you agree, it seems. Certainly nobody can prove a negative. If that is your point, fine. But there are people who scan the internet every Thursday at 5 pm looking for the pony.

 

[MikeG]

If Dr Ketchum has unimpeachable evidence in support of the existence of these creatures, then I can see no problem with her having claimed to have seen some of them.

Are you Serious ? You think she really witnessed real Bigfoots.

No, I don't. You're twisting my words, or missing my point.

Let me see if I can make it clearer. IF she has DNA proof of the existence of these creatures (IF)......then there is nothing wrong with her having claimed to see them. If someone goes into a rainforest, gathers some DNA samples from a new-to-science frog, and comes out and announces to the world that she has observed a new frog, you wouldn't have any issues, I presume? What is the fundamental difference?

Mike

 

[LTC8K6]

Melba saw wild zebras?

 

[StankApe]

No, I don't. You're twisting my words, or missing my point.

Let me see if I can make it clearer. IF she has DNA proof of the existence of these creatures (IF)......then there is nothing wrong with her having claimed to see them. If someone goes into a rainforest, gathers some DNA samples from a new-to-science frog, and comes out and announces to the world that she has observed a new frog, you wouldn't have any issues, I presume? What is the fundamental difference?

Mike

frogs are real, finding a new frog is a mundane claim.

finding a much hyped never discovered 8+ foot tall 600 lb man ape is not a mundane claim. Yet it still requires the same evidence for any other species, show us the monkey

 

[Castro]

Substitute the word "zebra" for BF, and then tell me what the problem is. What is the issue with having witnessed the animal you are studying?

Without providing anything to back up your claim, saying that you:

- observed wild zebras in Kenya , is not a problem.
- observed wild zebras in Texas, is a problem.
- observed pink and blue zebras somewhere, is a big problem.

Now, if you have the proof that pink and blue zebras ramble through Texas, then just show it to us.

 

[MikeG]

Mike, in case you didn't get the point of the zebra image: you are essence saying, "but if you assume bigfoot is real, then bigfoot is real." Thats begging the question.

No, Parn, I'm not saying anything like that at all.

I am saying, again, that criticising her for claiming to see the animal she is claiming to study is not to deal with her in the same way as you would deal with anyone else.

As you know well, I don't do "belief". I await evidence. I am no supporter of Ketchum, nor of sasquatch. However, I do like to see logical arguments used, on both sides, and I do dislike differing standards being applied to, or by, either side.

The "I saw bigfoot" statement is not, in my view, the stick with which to be flogging Dr Ketchum. I would be asking where the report is, and who the co-authors were.........

Mike

 

[Resume]

No, I don't. You're twisting my words, or missing my point.
Let me see if I can make it clearer. IF she has DNA proof of the existence of these creatures (IF)......then there is nothing wrong with her having claimed to see them. If someone goes into a rainforest, gathers some DNA samples from a new-to-science frog, and comes out and announces to the world that she has observed a new frog, you wouldn't have any issues, I presume? What is the fundamental difference?

Mike

What is you point?

To claim to have seen footie cavorting with family is a claim that requires evidence; no objective evidence has been offered, nor does any appear forthcoming.

Why do you imagine that is?

 

[GT/CS]

The problem is not that she said she saw bigfoot. The problem is that she said she saw groups of bigfoots numerous times, basically whenever she wanted, yet she didn't provide photos or video.

Can I provide evidence that she did not see what she claims she saw, of course not, but I can use my common sense to doubt her claims until she proves what she says she saw.

How many questionable stories must she tell before people stop giving her a free pass?

 

[DennyT]

I flog would anyone who claims to have seen a bigfoot, whether they were a biologist or a chimney sweep.
But for myself, I am not sure that she was the one who made those claims. I would be interested to see whether it could have been Sally Ramey, posting on Ketchum's account.
I have kind of gotten past what you hyperbolically refer to as flogging.
Ketchum has major troubles and I wish her well in getting back to a stable life. I think the chances of her producing a scholarly paper showing anything other than negative results are zero (rounded off....). Of more importance would be an interview, a cautionary tale, she could give on "what happened to my life after I got involved with the idea that the "bigfoot" of modern folklore could be a real creature."

 

[RedRatSnake]

I am saying, again, that criticising her for claiming to see the animal she is claiming to study is not to deal with her in the same way as you would deal with anyone else.

Simply put. The animal she is claiming to see does not exist, it is a myth and always has been, what we see in today's BF is a scam and hoax for profit.

So that leaves only one way to look at Ketchum's study and her claim to have witnessed these BF, It is a bunch of BS ~

 

[calwaterbear]

If someone goes into a rainforest, gathers some DNA samples from a new-to-science frog, and comes out and announces to the world that she has observed a new frog, you wouldn't have any issues, I presume? What is the fundamental difference?

Mike

Mike, In response to the above analogy, allow me to address that issue.
scientists would have a big issue with someone wandering out of the jungle and proclaiming they found a new species. They would demand proof!

scientifically speaking, assuming said frog was found, you would have taken samples, photographs etc. You would have compared those to known species, looking at specimens of closely related species to make sure yours truely is different. You would have written up a very specific discription of your new species. That writeup discribes the new species in detail, explaining how it is different from previously known species. your specimens would be deposited in reputable museums, available to any scientist in the world to examine upon request!
For many species now it is considered essential that you get DNA sequences and deposit them in Gen Bank, or the BarCode project. You include those sequences in the discription of the new species, and discuss your analysis of that sequence, and how it is the same and different from other sequences.

Once you have done this, You submit your manuscript to a reputable scientific "peer reviewed " Journal. The editor of that journal will send out 2 or 3 copies of your draft to the worlds most recognized experts in that particular group of animals. Each of the reviewers (anonomously typically) send back their reviews to the editor with usually alot of questions, comments, and "have you considered this".
The original discoverer with then get a letter from the editor. It will either say "rejected" for publication: meaning, your science was not accurate and meaningfull. or it will say there is some merit to your paper, but you need to address these questions and comments from the reviewers. You as the author have to go through and specifically address each and every comment or correction made by the reviewers, either accepting their edits, or if you reject them, you need to justify why you reject them.
You send back all of this to the editor, who reviews your changes, then resends them out to the reviewers!
This back and forth goes on for typically 2 or 3 rounds, and finally, if you meet all of the requirements, your paper is accepted for publication. At that point you get in the "que" and wait for the publication to come out, usually 4 - 12 months depending on the publication!

The process of discribing a new species takes between 1 and 2 years, depending on how quick you can do your rewrites, and how many you have to do!

So thats a very long way of explaining why, when someone comes wandering out of the jungle claiming they found a new frog, the scientists say - nice - now prove it!

In essence, it is not up to scientist to disprove Melbas claims, it is incumbant on her to provide the proof! Failure to do so, is a pattern that has been repeated ad infinitum by various crackpots and scam artists, who typically think if they shout long enough loud enough, they will find someone who will believe them!
In Melbas case, no DNA sequences, No evidence, No Paper, No Lab, no contact
those facts and behaviors speak pretty clearly! And scientist will call if fraud - and rightly so, until any evidence is presented to the contrary!
CwB
BTW i dont poste here much anymore - because our old buddy Southern Yahoo has intimidated me, because SY knows more about DNA than I Do! (at least thats what he is telling his fellow coolaid drinkers!) So i ran and hid with my tail between my legs!

 

[Sonny2]

Of more importance would be an interview, a cautionary tale, she could give on "what happened to my life after I got involved with the idea that the "bigfoot" of modern folklore could be a real creature."

My name is Melba, and I'm a recovering Bigfooter.

 

[MikeG]

I agree with Parn. There seems to me to be little chance that we will actually ever see a "Ketchum report". I have no supporting evidence for this assertion (and although I've asked for it, no-one else seems to have any either).

However, IF, IF she has got DNA evidence, and is about to publish a properly peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal (IF)...........then there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with her having claimed to see these creatures. IF, IF anyone on the planet has got good DNA evidence, then they exist, and people (including Ketchum) can realistically claim to see them.

You mustn't make the mistake of thinking that because I question the logic of criticising Ketchum's sighting claim that I give any of her claims any credence. I'm afraid I'll need some supporting evidence first.

All I am doing here is trying to make sure that the logic of the argument is sound.......nothing more, nothing less.

Mike

 

[StankApe]

BTW i dont poste here much anymore - because our old buddy Southern Yahoo has intimidated me, because SY knows more about DNA than I Do! (at least thats what he is telling his fellow coolaid drinkers!) So i ran and hid with my tail between my legs!

another fine trait of footery, it can turn a 54 yr old janitor into a leading DNA expert who will take his tiny bit of knowledge and fight to the death with a tenured biologist.....

 

[River]

I agree with Parn. There seems to me to be little chance that we will actually ever see a "Ketchum report". I have no supporting evidence for this assertion (and although I've asked for it, no-one else seems to have any either).

However, IF, IF she has got DNA evidence, and is about to publish a properly peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal (IF)...........then there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with her having claimed to see these creatures. IF, IF anyone on the planet has got good DNA evidence, then they exist, and people (including Ketchum) can realistically claim to see them.

You mustn't make the mistake of thinking that because I question the logic of criticising Ketchum's sighting claim that I give any of her claims any credence. I'm afraid I'll need some supporting evidence first.

All I am doing here is trying to make sure that the logic of the argument is sound.......nothing more, nothing less.

Mike

If monkeys had silver balls, that were made of kryptonyte, we would be ok with claiming they have been used as trailer hitches.

See where I'm going with this? Too many "ifs". It either is, or isn't, and it's not. There is no bigfoot creature to produce DNA, or to be seen. She may have been played by a habituation claimer with a suit, or just be making up ****. To date, her claims have been baseless, and bordering delusional. That might be a more accurate description than all of your "ifs".

 

[Jodie]

As remote as the possibility might be for the existence of bigfoot I am open minded to the possibility, however, it's the majority of the people who are out there currently looking for bigfoot that is the problem. Melba's study was dependent on what they provided, assuming any of it got analyzed in the first place.

The way I see it, if the community is disappointed with the results, or lack of results from this study, then that responsibility lies squarely on their shoulders. They only have themselves to blame.

 

[DennyT]

If monkeys had silver balls, that were made of kryptonyte, we would be ok with claiming they have been used as trailer hitches.

 

[MikeG]

Guys 'n gals.

Thanks for all the explanations, but none of you are really addressing the fundamental point. Claiming to have seen a bigfoot is not inconsistant with claiming to have DNA from the species. All I am saying is that her claim to have seen them isn't the thing that "removes all her credibility", as was claimed. No, the thing that removes her credibility is that she hasn't produced her claimed evidence.

Mike