Bigfoot DNA

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Here are some bigfoot legends from the Colvilles. I won't vouch for any of them because I don't know the author of the book but it is in the public sector, which brings me to my point.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/fusch.htm

Talk about hubris. There's a reason this didn't make it into a bona-fide accounting of Colville Indian Reservation legends. This is a self-declared "Anthropologist", also a self-declared "Dr. and PhD" - which seems an obvious lie on the face of it. A scoundrel.

He claims to have achieved degrees in Arts and Science, Anthropology/Archaeology, Geology, and Philosophy! From Wenatchee Valley College (Which grants none of those) and Eastern Washington University, where there is no such thing as Anthropology/Archaology. So he is a liar, even about undergraduate studies.

Just look at the stories, starting off with Adam and Eve fostering Cain, who is bigfoot. Oopsie! There is a story allegedly in 1885 with an indian maiden carried off in her white slip. Oopsie! Everywhere you look it is perfectly obvious these are not pre-European legends, but things made up only recently, possibly even by this man. They're really bad, sort of how Joseph Smith spoke in King James Version English to lend an air of verisimilitude to his stories.

What kind of gall does it take to do this? Looking over his record, he went to a sasquatch conference in 1978 at UBC and that gained him his international bigfoot cultural credentials displayed in his remarkable self-published book.

This is the kind of scruples it takes, and whenever we look closely - that's what we see with the 'footers.

Edit: He has a BA in Geology from Eastern Washington. Parading around as a PhD and Anthropologist. This is from their Alumni News:

Ed Fusch (BA, 1987) is a consulting geologist, assayer/geochemist, and
anthropological researcher in his company Mining Center. He teaches
classes in mineral exploration, electronic prospecting, etc., and addressed
the International Society of Cryptozoology and the British Folklore Society
in Surrey England, reporting on results of a research he conducted over a
10-year period.

 

[Drewbot]

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/keinan-clark-population-growth-2012.html

Recent posting by Dr. Hawks detailing how large population and growth means more and more mutations are appearing at very low frequencies.

Data sets must become larger in order to identify characteristics in a population.

This is possibly a problem considering the number of samples in Dr. Ketchum's data set.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/keinan-clark-population-growth-2012.html

Large-scale sequencing projects have moved beyond simply categorizing common genetic variation. They are now at a stage where thousands of individuals need to be examined, to find increasingly rare genetic variations and determine their collective effects on phenotypes. That means that the next version of the 1000 Genomes Project really needs to be involve many of us who are directly concerned with human population history.

 

[TheJackal]

Dr. Hawks article is exactly why thePaper will never see the light of day in a respectable journal. You can't have DNA samples that come up "human" with one variation in the MC1R gene. The data set in GenBank is incomplete, and does not capture all the DNA from 6.8 Billion humans on the planet; and, therefore, does not capture all of the possible mutations of MC1R. Any savvy referee reviewing thePaper would know full well that you can't draw the conclusion that the DNA is "Bigfoot" because the variation of the MC1R is not in GenBank. The only logical conclusion is that you have "human" DNA with an undocumented variation of the MC1R gene; NOT that it is Bigfoot. You need to eliminate the obvious before you can conclude the mythological.

Also, what is interesting in Dr. Hawks article is that you introduce a possiblity of "false-positives". So, even the result of a non-cataloged MC1R variation could be nothing more than a "false-positive". Again, this is why it will be very difficult to get thePaper published, and to defend thePaper if it ever does get published.

 

[DennyT]

....

What kind of gall does it take to do this? Looking over his record, he went to a sasquatch conference in 1978 at UBC and that gained him his international bigfoot cultural credentials displayed in his remarkable self-published book.

This is the kind of scruples it takes, and whenever we look closely - that's what we see with the 'footers.

Edit: He has a BA in Geology from Eastern Washington. Parading around as a PhD and Anthropologist. This is from their Alumni News:

so is he now a corrupt evil elite Syintist or a courageous bleever syintist?
good work.

 

[BravesFan]

Dr. Hawks article is exactly why thePaper will never see the light of day in a respectable journal. You can't have DNA samples that come up "human" with one variation in the MC1R gene. The data set in GenBank is incomplete, and does not capture all the DNA from 6.8 Billion humans on the planet; and, therefore, does not capture all of the possible mutations of MC1R. Any savvy referee reviewing thePaper would know full well that you can't draw the conclusion that the DNA is "Bigfoot" because the variation of the MC1R is not in GenBank. The only logical conclusion is that you have "human" DNA with an undocumented variation of the MC1R gene; NOT that it is Bigfoot. You need to eliminate the obvious before you can conclude the mythological.

Also, what is interesting in Dr. Hawks article is that you introduce a possiblity of "false-positives". So, even the result of a non-cataloged MC1R variation could be nothing more than a "false-positive". Again, this is why it will be very difficult to get thePaper published, and to defend thePaper if it ever does get published.

This is why I think the paper will be called "Variations in MC1R as yet seen in Genbank" (or wtvr) there will be no mention of unknown primate nor Bigfoot.

BUT, when she explains this to the Footers she will explain how this "proves" Bigfoot and how" groundbreaking " it is. It's the perfect way to get it published in a decent journal, yet still spin it to the footers

 

[DennyT]

I imagine that whatever "new" snp's she's found have already been found by others in basically normal modern humans, but were not thought worthy of publication and didn't find their way to Genbank. So if ThePaper is published, I expect there will be (if anyone reads her article, not a given) an immediate shower of letters saying in essence, "not so much.."
btw, now that another "deadline" has gone by the boards, a new one (or more) has been put forward. And of course the usual pointing of fingers at the evil skeptics and men in black. These are absolutely classic manifestations of cognitive dissonance as described by Festinger in the classic "When Prophesy Fails."
p.

 

[GT/CS]

Something I find interesting is how most of the folks on the BFF and a few other sites are fairly astute at rejecting most blurry bigfoot photos and videos but they accept Ketchum as the second coming and her work (whatever it is) as their new gospel.

Why are so few of them holding her feet to the fire?

 

[RayG]

Ketchum is the latest Willy Wonka of bigfootdom, and her Oompa Loompas will support her no matter what.

RayG

 

[DennyT]

In defense of Dr. Ketchum, I expect that what she had been dealing with for many years were mutations in human-selected pets/domestic animals. It may be that for obvious reasons, in that subject population, certain genetic characteristics are easier to work out than in humans. Perhaps she expected a similar state of the art in humans. I am certainly not an expert but I do know, for example, that hair color determination generally works differently in humans than it does in animals...generally speaking humans don't exhibit the kinds of banding/stripes/spots that we see in other animals.

Further, I think it is very possible that she could have been "hoodwinked" by one or more of the individuals who submitted samples, or by those who furnished samples to those who submitted them to her. She has only their word as to where the samples came from, what the circumstances were, and why they were submitted. This issue of "provenance" makes it very difficult to take seriously any claims that rare yet similar patterns were found in (otherwise modern human) samples obtained "all across the country." I can go to the airport at 6 am and by 10 pm have returned, having mailed samples to Texas from 6 states and three countries. Affadavits/schmaffadavits...let's be frank here, she is dealing with a group of people not unlike Roger Patterson. The more they learn about DNA and what is needed in that realm to fool the world, the more likely it will be that they will come up with it.

 

[River]

In defense of Dr. Ketchum, I expect that what she had been dealing with for many years were mutations in human-selected pets/domestic animals. It may be that for obvious reasons, in that subject population, certain genetic characteristics are easier to work out than in humans. Perhaps she expected a similar state of the art in humans. I am certainly not an expert but I do know, for example, that hair color determination generally works differently in humans than it does in animals...generally speaking humans don't exhibit the kinds of banding/stripes/spots that we see in other animals.

Further, I think it is very possible that she could have been "hoodwinked" by one or more of the individuals who submitted samples, or by those who furnished samples to those who submitted them to her. She has only their word as to where the samples came from, what the circumstances were, and why they were submitted. This issue of "provenance" makes it very difficult to take seriously any claims that rare yet similar patterns were found in (otherwise modern human) samples obtained "all across the country." I can go to the airport at 6 am and by 10 pm have returned, having mailed samples to Texas from 6 states and three countries. Affadavits/schmaffadavits...let's be frank here, she is dealing with a group of people not unlike Roger Patterson. The more they learn about DNA and what is needed in that realm to fool the world, the more likely it will be that they will come up with it.

She claims to have seen them. Multiple times. Along with these DNA claims, or rather leading on of the public. Credibility. Get some.

:

 

[Resume]

She claims to have seen them. Multiple times. Along with these DNA claims, or rather leading on of the public. Credibility. Get some.

:

Yes, once she made this claim, there's no going back; her credibilty rests on putting up or shutting up.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Parnassus keeps showing his own decent nature, projecting that onto others. That's exactly what con-men use against us.

 

[DennyT]

Now, the sightings are another story. However, to me they may indicate, again, that she is a credulous person. I could conceive of her being hoaxed by whoever is her host on these "get togethers".

Has she ever said that she collected specimens from whatever she saw? She has made somewhat contradictory claims about photos, I think.

The other area of concern is the apparent inaccuracy of a number of statements on facebook, concerning "embargos' and the like. Again, those may be related to inexperience. But to me they give the impression of someone scrambling to cover up a trainwreck.

p.

 

[AttorneyTom]

I perceive a "what have I allowed myself to get involved in" situation. Just me..

 

[DennyT]

all that said, at some point, even a credulous person has to stop looking around for the pony, and clean up the big mess.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Reasonable people can disagree on this. The hard thing to fight is our own nature: substituting our own conscience for that of others. The kindest way to say it is that she has a screw loose.

But she isn't stupid. What criminologists do to differentiate between accident, innocent mistake, self-defense etc. as opposed to calculated crime is to observe how they conceal what they know shows their guilt. Lying is the most basic method, and there are three types: the overt lie, the lie by omission, and the lie by inclusion of extraneous misleading information. The facebook page alone is like a giant billboard advertising all three.

 

[DennyT]

ABP, I am giving a sort of best-case scenario. I would also add that if she has dealt largely with domestics/pets, she may have had a view of intraspecies variability (e.g. chihuahuas v Great Danes) which would allow her to honestly believe that modern humans and the popular bigfoot could be of the same species ie have the same mtDNA, with the marked phenotypic differences based simply on some mutations in certain nuDNA genes.

I don't think this interpretation would have survived any interaction with an actual primatologist or population geneticist. I expect that if these experts she has purportedly brought in are actually telling her it's "interesting," then I would interpret that as polite. If I asked my wife to review a manuscript and she said that, I'd prolly start over.

The facebook stuff, to me, suggests that her PR person is operating pretty much in the dark, while Dr. Ketchum keeps pretty mum on what journals she is submitting to and what she is getting back from them. I would guess that by now she has probably gone through at least 3 or 4. I have had papers rejected, and it's not the kind of thing you shout from the rooftops. I think that could explain her dodginess at this point.

I realize that you may be closer to the truth than I am. The multiple sightings stuff makes it quite difficult to not view her much less generously than I would like to.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

However, to me they may indicate, again, that she is a credulous person. I could conceive of her being hoaxed by whoever is her host on these "get togethers".


p.

You may be more right about this than I thought. Check PM's.

 

[DennyT]

in a post at RobertLindsay, Stubstad terms Ketchum's hypotheses "vaguely tenable."

Hi all !

A new thread I happened to find here …

My guess re. Ketchum’s long overdue paper is that she can’t help herself with vaguely tenable hypotheses, along with tenable DNA facts (mito and nuclear sequences). The idea of changing the order of the authors is a good one; I suggested this too, towards the end of 2010.

She said “no way, Jose”. It won’t matter if it’s Paabo & Green themselves; she won’t ever let this one go as second or third fiddler, even if it means ultimate failure.

The ego point made by Lindsay is well taken and absolutely accurate (not to mention potentially big bucks).

I would term this "faint praise." (if that.)

 

[DennyT]

The entry of Meldrum (not to mention Stubstad, Ed Smith, and who knows else) into the DNA field insures that hope will never die for the 'footers. There will always be samples to submit, multiple labs to process material, encouraging letters and emails from lab owners, polymorphisms to hype, papers being endlessly written and rewritten, power point presentations phoned in, press embargos that last for years, publications in 3rd rate journals, blurry videos and images, reports of encounters, campaigns to save the bigfoot, descriptions of bigfoot family life, diet, shelters, communications, and footprints; and nine year olds reporting bigfoot sightings in Wisconsin school yards. The one thing there will never be... is an actual bigfoot.