Sasquatch Coffee


For The Record: Ketchum’s Press Release, Hawk’s Memorable Quote, and Burtsev’s Review History Updates

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 6th, 2012

On November 23, 2012, Igor Burtsev released this message:

Team of American scientists led by Dr. Melba Ketchum for five years has analyzed 109 purported samples of such creatures. The study has sequenced DNA of a novel North American hominin, commonly called Bigfoot or Sasquatch.
There were a large number of laboratories associated with this study including academic, private and government laboratories in which blind testing was utilized to avoid prejudice in testing. Great time and care was taken in the forensic laboratories to assure no contamination occurred with any of the samples utilized in this study.
After 5 years of this study the scientists can finally answer the question of what sasquatch really is. It is human like us only different, a hybrid of a human with unknown species. Early field research shows that the Bigfoot/Sasquatches are massively intelligent which has enabled them to avoid detection to a large extent. They are different than us, however human nonetheless.
The hybridization event could not have occurred more than 15000 years ago according to the mitochondrial data in some samples. Origin of this hominin was probably Middle Eastern/Eastern Europe and Europe originally though other geographic areas are not excluded.
The manuscript associated with this study has been submitted to a scientific reviewed magazine.
For years people have refused to believe they exist. Now that we know that they are real, it is up to us to protect them from those that would hunt or try to capture them for research or for sport. They should be left alone to live as they live now. After all, they are our relatives.
At this time, analysis of the Sasquatch genomes is still ongoing. Further data will be presented in the future following this original study. Additionally, analysis of various hair samples purportedly from Siberian Wildman are being tested in an effort to determine if relatedness exists between the Sasquatch and Russian Wildman.

###

Quickly, what followed was this from Melba Ketchum.

Dallas, TX (PRWEB) November 24, 2012

A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch,” living in North America. Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.

The study was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology, led by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum of Nacogdoches, TX. In response to recent interest in the study, Dr. Ketchum can confirm that her team has sequenced 3 complete Sasquatch nuclear genomes and determined the species is a human hybrid:

“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.

Hominins are members of the taxonomic grouping Hominini, which includes all members of the genus Homo. Genetic testing has already ruled out Homo neanderthalis and the Denisova hominin as contributors to Sasquatch mtDNA or nuDNA. “The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual,” explains Ketchum.

“Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.”

Ketchum is a veterinarian whose professional experience includes 27 years of research in genetics, including forensics. Early in her career she also practiced veterinary medicine, and she has previously been published as a participant in mapping the equine genome. She began testing the DNA of purported Sasquatch hair samples 5 years ago.

Ketchum calls on public officials and law enforcement to immediately recognize the Sasquatch as an indigenous people:

“Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry. Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them.”

Full details of the study will be presented in the near future when the study manuscript publishes.

###

Dr. Ketchum is available for interview or to answer further questions about the Sasquatch genome study and associated research on novel contemporary hominins.

###

The contact individual listed at the bottom of the press release was Robin Lynne (i.e. the individual in Michigan who commented earlier in 2012 about her decades of firsthand contact with Bigfoot and how she has saved blueberry bagels with Sasquatch saliva on them for testing).

###

One of the most pointed and yet considered opinions was posted by anthropologist John Hawks on his blog. He wrote, in part: “Until I see the data, I am withholding judgment….No data, no discovery.”

###

There is also this remarkable observation by Bart Cutino: “The problem is that the person climbing that ladder, rather you or I like it or not, by her decision to go public against her supposed own rules, is now representing all of us and happens to believe the biological species we pursue also happens to be fallen angels, has the ability to speak to her through her mind, suddenly frequents her property (only since her work began, mind you), braids the hair of her horses and essentially have thankfully allowed and even encouraged her to move forward in her work. Without having passed peer review, she’s demanding constitutional rights and protection now for an unrecognized species she’s drawing attention to…. by attempting to recognize them? Or… maybe she’s really not and just attempting to make us all believe she is?”

###

On December 6, 2012, Igor Burtsev posted the following further comment on Facebook, in reply to my posting of his reasoning on Cryptomundo:

Unfortunately science now is too conservative/ One third of the population of the USA believes in BFs existing, but academic science even does not want to recognize the problem of their existing or not^ juwst rejecting to diacuss this question. In such a condition this subject is under discussion of the broad public. We can’t wait decades when scientists start to study this problem, forest people need to be protect now, not after half a sentury, when science wakes up. Re thr paper: the reviewed journals in the US refused to publish the paper. That is why Dr Ketchum has sent it to me to arrange publishing in any Russian reviewd journal. And I showed to our genetisits and understood that it was a serious work. I gave it up to the journal, now it’s under reviewing

I informed public about the results of the study. The public waited for this info for more than a year, a lot of rumors were spreading around. And the public has the right to know it nevertheless “science” says about it.

###

I’ve said some things, similar to John Hawks, that comments on the results are best held back until the paper is published and the findings are in. “No Leak Zone” is a joke and, sadly, a hollow wish. But the direction of the discussion has been changed by the Facebook/emailed leaks and the Ketchum press release. Therefore, I have agreed to talk with George Noory on Coast to Coast AM next Monday to dissect the media flap that has now been created and what it means for serious cryptozoology and Sasquatch studies.

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


35 Responses to “For The Record: Ketchum’s Press Release, Hawk’s Memorable Quote, and Burtsev’s Review History Updates”

  1. bigfoots responds:

    i dont know what is more confusing.. the way this was/is being handled or the high school senior picture? that is always used for her?

    when i first saw the press release i didnt even know who it was…

  2. marcodufour responds:

    I just heard Dr Melba Ketchums paper failed its peer review.

  3. marcodufour responds:

    As the paper has failed perhaps it is now time to show the alleged bodies recovered? (Not that i believe any bodies were kept for a second). A put up or shut up moment if ever there was one.

  4. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    Do scientists usually have a Glamour Shot taken when they publish? Because if they do, I want to see Jane Goodall’s.

  5. D2K4 responds:

    Just one little thing that’s bugging me. This quote from Burtsev:

    “Unfortunately science now is too conservative/ One third of the population of the USA believes in BFs existing, but academic science even does not want to recognize the problem of their existing or not^ juwst rejecting to diacuss this question. In such a condition this subject is under discussion of the broad public.”

    What does a third of the public believing in Bigfoot have to do with anything? The last time I checked science was not a democracy anymore than reality is.

  6. Raiderpithicusblaci responds:

    When Dr. Burtsev first leaked this story, I must admit i let myself get a little carried away. Having said that, and in light of some of the more questionable statements made by Dr. Ketchum (i.e. telepathic communication with the alledged creatures, ect), I must now sadly say that this appears to be another black eye for bigfootery. However, I made a statement several days ago and I must reiterate, let’s wait for the paper to come out and we just may get an relict ape out of this yet. Merry Christmas, big guy.

  7. DWA responds:

    D2K4:

    “What does a third of the public believing in Bigfoot have to do with anything? The last time I checked science was not a democracy anymore than reality is.”

    No, it’s not. And when the science is correct, scientists should stand by results against the public’s lack of relevant knowledge.

    Problem is, many of us don’t think the science is correct on this one. We think Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz and Swindler were persuaded by evidence they are uniquely qualified to judge, and that the mainstream opposition comes almost entirely from ignorance of the evidence.

    While I might not be interested in – nor want to hear – why the 30% think that way, it’s probably reasonable to assume that there are some scientists or potential scientists (or guys/gals like me, with two potential daughter-scientists to influence) in that total, and that the public pressure for a scientific referee will only increase over time. The information is easy to get, and it points clearly to an unlisted animal.

    Public curiosity may be the key catalyst to final recognition. The public, after all, pays scientists’ salaries. They listen to the public.

    Which is a major reason, I’ll wager, for their attitude toward sasquatch evidence. Well, that opinion is changing; and they will listen as it does.

  8. dconstrukt responds:

    like the guy said in the original post…

    No data, no discovery.

  9. Alamo responds:

    Nice one Bigfoots… at least it’s consistent: looks much better on paper/ from a distance than in real life/ up close…

  10. alan borky responds:

    “The last time I checked science was not a democracy anymore than reality is.”

    D2K4 and DWA’ve you guys forgotten the recent episode of the scientific committee voting on whether animals’re conscious or not?

    It wasn’t a unanimous decision either.

    And what about the vote which overruled Pluto’s status as a planet?

    You’d be shocked how much what passes for mainstream science’s committee based either overtly or covertly.

    Ditto reality I suggest!

  11. asecretcountry responds:

    DWA responds: No, it’s not.And when the science is correct

    Regarding the post at hand..
    What science.????
    Facebook updates and “leaks” and claims are not science.!!

    And when the science is correct, scientists should stand by results against the public’s lack of relevant knowledge.

    Yes…but now you are arguing against yourself.
    Ketchum has nothing..there is no science just claims of science.
    There is a difference right. ? :)
    What sort of “relevant knowledge” do you have that the general public don’t have.,???
    Thats your aware of more bigfoot anecdotes and bits of plaster than Joe public…? :)
    Wow..

    Problem is, many of us don’t think the science is correct on this one

    There is NO science on this one..

    We think Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz and Swindler were persuaded by evidence they are uniquely qualified to judge,

    Yes..thats why scientists can and do make mistakes..all the time..
    You seem to be arguing from a weak “appeal to authority” which is a logical fallacy.
    You seem to be saying..”these scientists are claiming some big things..so they must be right..because they are scientists” which is just ludicrous.

    and that the mainstream opposition comes almost entirely from ignorance of the evidence.

    Ignorance of the evidence..your kidding right..?? :)
    The “mainstream opposition” is aware that the “evidence” is a pile of plaster prints..nothing more.

    The information is easy to get, and it points clearly to an unlisted animal.

    If a person was so ignorant that they cannot tell the difference between “information” which is unverified(anecdotes) and and information which is testable and scientific ..yes it is easy to “get”.
    But in this world..there is a difference between anecdotes and science..

    Public curiosity may be the key catalyst to final recognition.

    “Public curiosity” has nothing to do with science..!!!!!
    In this subject a body would be the catalyst… nothing else..

  12. Alamo responds:

    Hey Secret,

    Who died and made you the Grand Wizard of Science? Hey everybody, Secret says it’s not science, we can all go home…

    Science

    1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

    By that definition alone, it is you who are not doing the science here. Simply repeating what someone else says in a sarcastic tone does not make you smart or “science-y”. Meldrum, Krantz, et al… are tenured scientists with degrees in the relevant disciplines and publications under their belts, what do you have that allows you to pass judgement on their work as not only irrelevant, but not even science?

    With that kind if attitude, what are you doing here anyway? Did you think it would be easy and you could make yourself feel better by taking potshots at Bigfooters, like fish in a barrel? Tell you what, why don’t you start your own site… you can call it Thataintsciencemundo.com. Then you could publish articles like, “Bigfoot – That ain’t science!”… “Yeti- That ain’t science either!”… “Cryptids – Whachoo talkin bout science…”

    The scientific method is most certainly not democratic in nature… the acceptance of things as scientific “truth”… most certainly is. Your post is a perfect case in point.

  13. asecretcountry responds:

    Hey Alamo

    My Friend..cutting and pasting a definition of science here..doesn’t mean you have the slightest idea what your talking about.
    Other than obvious block quotes…I am not repeating anything other people said.
    Sorry.. :)

    First mistake..an appeal to authority.
    Second..it doesn’t matter what degrees you have, or who you know, its what you can prove.
    Thats what science is.
    People/scientists can and do make mistakes..all the time.

    what do you have that allows you to pass judgement on their work as not only irrelevant, but not even science?

    What do I have. :)
    A decent knowledge of the history of science..
    A decent knowledge of what constitutes scientific discoveries.
    A decent knowledge of how some scientists, even when they publish, can and do make mistakes.
    Join retraction Watch and open your eyes to the world.
    A decent knowledge of weird claims.. :)
    Regarding this case..there is no science…there are claims…nothing else.
    What part of that sentence don’t you get. ??????????
    If you know where the science is..then produce it..
    Krantz was dead before this debacle started and Meldrum is being…cautious
    …and for good reason.
    “I am anxious to see the results — whatever they are!”

    And when the whole thing crashes..and it will.. :)..will you stand up and here and admit you were made to look like a fool for believing this hoax…or will you do what I suspect.
    Say nothing..and rush to the next obvious hoax…ready to run with that one.?
    Unlike yourself…I would love to see myself wrong on this..
    But after all these years of ketchup Kraziness…..It aint looking good tiger.. :)

    With that kind if attitude, what are you doing here anyway?

    My attitude..?
    I was trying to bring a tiny amount of sanity/humour to this madness.. :)
    What am I doing here…?
    I enjoy mysteries…what about yourself?
    Would it better to be surrounded in an echo chamber of people who agree with you. ?
    Would that make you feel more comfortable..?
    And why so serious about this really lousy case..
    What have you got to lose..?
    A few hours bent over a keyboard and 5 books on cryptozoology means your now “hardcore”…or something.. ? :)

    Did you think it would be easy and you could make yourself feel better by taking potshots at Bigfooters.

    sigh…..read the post again..
    I was not taking potshots at bigfooters per se..
    I was taking pot shots at this case and the ketchup circus..

    The scientific method is most certainly not democratic in nature… the acceptance of things as scientific “truth”… most certainly is.

    LIke you..I have no idea what that rambling sentence is trying to say..…
    There is no such thing as scientific “truth”..often their is an agreed consensus..for a time..unless things change due to discoveries etc….and a generation of scientists possibly dies..and then memes change etc.
    peace

  14. Alamo responds:

    Funny how some people only believe in science when it says what they want. They can go from sitting on their couches watching CSI, “They found dermal ridges? Man they got that guy… what DNA too? 98% match? Man… I’d hate to be him. What? They found his footprint at the scene and it was consistent with other past incidents? He’s getting the chair for sure… that’s some good sciencing there…”

    Then on Cryptomundo it’s fingers in the ears and eyes shut tight, “Bah bah bah… bits of plaster… nah nah nah… not science! ”

    Hey secret,

    So what you’re saying is you have nothing… except I guess you’re the only one here who understands science (when you become Grand Wizard, do they give you a special wand?). So if you understand science then you’ll understand this: science is done by peer review… if you’re not in Meldrum’s peer group, you have no scientific standing to say anything about the relevance of his work… period.

  15. asecretcountry responds:

    Hi Alamo
    Still taking this whole thing very seriously I see.. :)

    Funny how some people only believe in science when it says what they want. They can go from sitting on their couches watching CSI

    And from that tv fiction..you then..badly segue to trying to mock people that understand that a collection of bits of plaster does not mean “evidence/proof” of unknown bipedal beasts in US.

    “Bah bah bah… bits of plaster… nah nah nah… not science!

    Correct..its just bits of plaster.
    If your talking about a biological discovery..bits of plaster is not evidence of a species.
    Or in your world….it does mean that a species exists because……CSI tv show sends guys to the chair from dermal ridges..

    Hey secret,So what you’re saying is you have nothing…

    If I had nothing..why have you run into so many problems “debating” the topic. :)
    I know what evidence is.
    I know what science is and the parameters and problems that are in this field.
    You could try reading Popper/Feyerabend/Kuhn etc…
    I also know a fair bit about unusual claims..

    except I guess you’re the only one here who understands science (when you become Grand Wizard, do they give you a special wand?)

    No, there would be others here.
    Not everyone here..is like you. :)

    So if you understand science then you’ll understand this: science is done by peer review…

    Exactly.!
    When a paper is published..!!!
    BUT THERE IS NO PAPER FROM KETCHUM.

    if you’re not in Meldrum’s peer group, you have no scientific standing to say anything about the relevance of his work… period.

    Sigh..
    Now your confused..again.
    Your now mixing up peer review with a persons peers.. commenting on unpublished data.
    You do understand their is a difference.???
    Are you one of Meldrum’s peers..????(Obviously I am joking) because you obviously have an opinion on this unpublished data.
    It cuts both ways right.??
    Anyway..in the real world..anyone can have an opinion on unpublished claims.
    Just a hint..instead of parading your lack of understanding of what science is publicly (why anyone would do that is beyond me)..stick to the topic and post.
    Butchering science..murdering analogies, misreading comments and Grand wizard gags are not really working well so far tiger. :)
    Peace.. :)

  16. JE_McKellar responds:

    Peer review by prestigious journals is important for establishing scientific credibility, but this case might be an important exception. Ketchum should just go ahead and release the data. It doesn’t really matter where the samples came from, or even how precise her lab technique was. The technology is standardized enough that Ketchum’s data should be commensurable with what’s coming out of other labs. Just put the DNA sequence out there for professionals and amateurs alike to analyze. There’s no need to spend years finessing Ketchum’s analysis and conclusions, because frankly, her interpretation doesn’t matter, at least not compared to the specialists in population genetics. Her contribution is having the gumption and the connections to do the sequencing in the first place.

    The evidence, the full genome sequence, should be able to speak for itself. Once the professionals have the chance to examine it, it should be clear whether or not it’s a forgery, a known animal, or an hereto unknown relative of a known animal. It doesn’t need to be conclusive, just interesting enough to warrant further study.

    Just release the data, and let professionals and amateurs alike thrash out its value in open discussion. All this secrecy serves no one but the publishing companies.

  17. DWA responds:

    “Just a hint..instead of parading your lack of understanding of what science is publicly (why anyone would do that is beyond me)..stick to the topic and post.”

    It’s not Alamo who doesn’t understand science. It’s the ‘bigfoot skeptics,’ hereinafter appropriately known as BS’ers, which I always put in quotes because they aren’t skeptical…and mainstream scientists. They’re the ones who don’t understand science.

    (Safety tip, children: outside their narrow scientific specialties, most scientists are less useful than your average auto mechanic, and know less about how their discipline should work.)

    The BS’ers don’t understand that they are in a scientific debate here. Instead of their old tired canard of no proof no proof no proof, they are tasked with explaining how all this evidence – everything else with this much is proven as real – could possibly be a fake.

    (Hint: there are only two possibilities. Either it’s the greatest concerted hoax of all time, carried out by generations of top scientists; or a random series of hoaxes lies and misidentifications is masquerading as a significant head start on the biology of a species. The latter does not happen in the real world. Those are your choices, BS’ers. Which is it?)

    Instead, they defend mainstream scientists, who have stonewalled on even investigating this matter….since 1871! That’s when the New York Times posted an editorial asking, who’s going to finally investigate all these ‘wildman’ reports? Guess nobody is. But society is not looking to the proponents for the proof. We delegate that to mainstream disciplines, whom the BS’ers defend for falling down on the job.

    So, anyway, safety tip, children. If you don’t know anything about this, stop coming on here with no proof no proof no proof. Are you interested in this at all? Or are you just trolling?

    It’s the PUBLIC, I repeat, that is going to be the catalyst to getting the mainstream involved. We pay scientists’ salaries. When they aren’t doing science, protest is the response. It’s already starting. “Finding Bigfoot” isn’t the answer, but how do you think it got on the air? It’s boosting reports to the BFRO, which sound just like the reports people have been making for generations. So no, copycatting is a lame, naive response. People are seeing this animal…and now they know where to report it.

    Read up, BS’ers. It’s tiresome to read you. So other than cherrypicking, I don’t. But I cherrypick the right stuff, don’t I?

  18. slappy responds:

    JE_McKellar:

    if the data was released then she wouldn’t be able to monetize it. after all, that’s what science is all about isn’t it??

    seeing the stream of press releases by those involved in this ‘research’ is like watching clowns tumble out of their clown car. except this circus isn’t fun.

  19. Alamo responds:

    secret,

    Saying, “I know science… I am the authority… you must respect my authority!” does not make it so. You are claiming that your un-supported opinion trumps that of a Doctor of Anatomical Sciences (emphasis in biological anthropology). Yes, I realize that just because he’s a doctor doesn’t mean he’s right… but all things considered (especially since we are talking about his specialization), I’m listening to him over you. At the behest of your friend Dr. Meldrum, Oxford University (they have a few science-ey types over there) is doing their own DNA study… I guess Oxford is also doing “not science”.

    There is a science called forensics, you may have heard of it, it means that a body is not required in order to prove murder (see the murders of Thomas and Jackie Hawks). So how is it that forensics can prove murder in court, but it can’t prove Sasquatch without a body? The evidence for the existence of Sasquatch would be enough to convict you in front of a jury of your peers (multiple eyewitness testimony, fibers, footprints, DNA, etc…). There is an extensive list of actual (not self proclaimed) scientists who were skeptical in the beginning but changed their minds after examining the evidence (Sanderson, Stubstad, etc…). DWA could actually give you a much better list if he felt so inclined… then you could examine the evidence for yourself and make informed comments, rather than speaking from ignorance. No, reading a few books on the subject does not make one an expert, but reading a few books on the subject matter might be a good idea before claiming that your opinions are science and Meldrum’s are not. PS… Why must you cut and paste what the original poster said? You see how I addressed your “must have a body” issue without having to cut and paste, it’s not necessary and it makes your writing very tedious.

    I have an idea, instead of cut and pasting the original thoughts of others and negging on them:

    “Original thought”… “Pooh pooh, this guy is so wrong”

    “Original thought”… “Pooh pooh, bits of plaster”

    “Original thought”… “Pooh pooh, not science”

    Try coming up with an original thought yourself that actually contributes to the discussion and furthers understanding of the subject…

  20. DWA responds:

    Alamo:

    Besides which, if anyone thinks that the trackways are not evidence that at least one man with relevant qualifications (Krantz) said would be tantamount to proof even if none of the sighting reports had ever occurred…let’s just say it’s not ‘anyone’ that I would be listening to on this.

    You impress me not a jot telling me you know more than some of the world’s best-qualified scientists…at judging just the kind of evidence that is on offer.

    Showing me that what you know amounts to …well, ‘bits’?

    That you do.

  21. corrick responds:

    Agree with asecretcountry. Everything I’ve read about Ketchum, her “team” and her study raise a red flag even bigger than the one that waves over Red Square on May Day.
    Imho, if the existence of “bigfoot” type creatures is ever proven, not that I personally think they exist, it most certainly won’t by this group of clowns and opportunists. Or Matt Moneymaker and “gang.” Or blimps. Like most new animal discoveries it will be verified by accident. A group of serious scientists in the field looking for something else, or road kill.

  22. JE_McKellar responds:

    @slappy: after reading Robert Lindsay’s latest gossip, it seems you’re exactly right. I guess we’ll just have to wait for a tenured professor with no career ambitions.

  23. MR JOSHUA responds:

    Look, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest something is out there. Giant and hairy wildmen have been reported in North America for hundreds of years by Native Americans, Settlers, Foreign Soldiers, etc. There is a reason people are still seeing these creatures to this day and are not reporting seeing velociraptors and saber tooth tigers running around our woods. Are a fair amount of them hoaxes ? Sure, but even if 70% are hoaxes and another 20% are misidentifications it is still that 10% that intrigues me.

  24. asecretcountry responds:

    Hi DWA


    The BS’ers don’t understand that they are in a scientific debate here.

    Since I am not a bigfoot sceptic per se..I assume this is directed at someone else.
    If you think bits of plaster and some interesting anecdotes is a “scientific debate” or proof of species..then don’t tell anyone outside of this board.
    It would be better for everyone.. :)


    (Hint: there are only two possibilities. Either it’s the greatest concerted hoax of all time, carried out by generations of top scientists; or a random series of hoaxes lies and misidentifications is masquerading as a significant head start on the biology of a species.

    Hint..thats argumentum ignoratum..
    Classic error in logic..I cannot think of any other explanation therefore..
    Sceptics and believers make this same mistake all the time.
    I have interviewed loads of witnesses to unusual events in 18 years..many people that have not..or are new to unusual phenomena..fall into the same logical trap.


    So, anyway, safety tip, children. If you don’t know anything about this, stop coming on here with no proof no proof no proof.

    The thread was about ketchums claims..
    And no proof no proof “bores” keyboard researchers because they know its true.

    Are you interested in this at all? Or are you just trolling?

    :)
    Amusing..
    I was trying to explain the difference between evidence of species..and interesting claims..I failed..some people on this board obviously know that plaster+anecdotes=species.
    You win.
    Unlike yourself..I have spent a considerable amount of time/money in my own country and abroad looking for unusual beasties. :)

    It’s the PUBLIC, I repeat, that is going to be the catalyst to getting the mainstream involved.

    Err,,the public..is you and me.
    Sorry..
    And if joe public reads some of the thread comments here..you have very successfully scared many of them off.
    Well done.! :)
    The profound does not attract profound thinkers..why is that..??

    Read up, BS’ers. It’s tiresome to read you. So other than cherrypicking, I don’t. But I cherrypick the right stuff, don’t I?

    Please do some reading on science and cryptozoology..
    If you are going to try and correct someones comments..correct them.
    You corrected nothing I wrote so that ends that.
    Having wild and predictable rants at imaginary opponents doesn’t help in the slightest. :)

    ##################

    Hi Alamo :)

    I’m listening to him over you.

    All he said was that he would wait and see what the result was..fine..he is not running around hysterically making mad claims.

    I guess Oxford is also doing “not science”.

    No..thats science..no mad claims from there either..friends of mine had DNA analysed there a few years ago..same people I went to Indonesia with hunting orang pendek . :)

    There is a science called forensics, you may have heard of it, it means that a body is not required in order to prove murder

    Alamo..I know this will be a shock to you..but DNA forensics for id different humans within our own known species..is not that new.
    And has nothing to do with what the thread is about.
    And I have used different labs for species id attempts from DNA many times over the years.
    What about yourself ??? :)

    So how is it that forensics can prove murder in court, but it can’t prove Sasquatch without a body?

    Alamo..
    I am never quite sure if you are pulling my leg or not.?
    Ketchum NEVER published anything..
    There is no DNA for species id of sasquatch.

    The evidence for the existence of Sasquatch would be enough to convict you in front of a jury of your peers (multiple eyewitness testimony, fibers, footprints, DNA, etc…).

    I agree the secondary “evidence” is very compelling..from a legal perspective..all I am saying….it is not scientific proof.

    then you could examine the evidence for yourself and make informed comments,

    All my comments about science are informed..you don’t understand them..thats your problem.
    Regarding cryptids and unusual claims..been doing this for over 18 years now matey..so sorry..
    Someone has read a few books and watches tv and lives on forums..is now going to tell me about evidence that exists.
    Sorry
    Big time fail :)

    rather than speaking from ignorance.

    You could fix that problem of yours by reading some books on science and going and iv people..
    And see fail reference above..

    No, reading a few books on the subject does not make one an expert, but reading a few books on the subject matter might be a good idea before claiming that your opinions are science and Meldrum’s are not.

    For the last time..if you are going to try and correct someone..struggle to read what they actually said and not what they didn’t say.
    Meldrum is a great scientist..all he said was wait and see.
    Thats it.

    PS… Why must you cut and paste what the original poster said? You see how I addressed your “must have a body” issue without having to cut and paste, it’s not necessary and it makes your writing very tedious.

    1) It makes it easier for me to correct a statement
    2) It means I am clearly not mis-quoting someone..as you and your friend have done…repeatedly..
    3) My clear responses are tedious..so tedious you never corrected anything I said..ran out of time did we. ? :)

    Try coming up with an original thought yourself that actually contributes to the discussion and furthers understanding of the subject…

    LOL
    From a guy that confuses CSI tv with the real world and is 100% clueless about these subjects..? :)
    My thoughts on weaknesses to your own ideas were original..and you stumbled when you ran into them..
    Even if they had been cut and pasted..they still were correct.
    Its not a sign of “original thought” to just type away without thinking anything through..
    Unsubscribed to thread.. :)

  25. Alamo responds:

    secret,

    Again with the, “I am the authority… respect my authority!” thing. You can keep saying it… it still doesn’t make it true. You’ve been doing this for 18 years… really? And this is all that you have learned? Impressive… same old tired, unoriginal, uninformed, unimaginative arguments. BTW, I’m calling BS on your “18 years”… you might be eighteen years old, mid twenties at the most. Nobody over thirty puts that many smiley faces on their emails.

    DWA,

    Not quite sure what you mean here, “You impress me not a jot… at judging just the kind of evidence that is on offer.” … could you clarify? I don’t remember saying that I know more than any of the “world’s best qualified scientists”, only self proclaimed ones. (note to secret, this is a relevant and useful example of a cut and paste that isn’t obnoxious)

  26. Alamo responds:

    Forensics

    1. The art or study of formal debate; argumentation.
    2. The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law.

    From the Latin, “forensis” – of or before the forum.

    Question:

    Forensics (aka forensic science, definition #2 above) can prove murder in a court of law absent a body, based only on secondary evidence (eyewitness testimony, fiber, dermal ridges, footprints, DNA etc…) Absent a body, can forensics (definition #1) and the use and analyses of the results of the same principles and scientific techniques used in courtrooms, prove without a reasonable doubt the existence of Sasquatch, in this and other more academically recognized forums?

    I submit that they can.

    What do Cryptomundians think, why or why not?

  27. Loren Coleman responds:

    Proving a crime in a court of law is very different than getting a paper peer reviewed/published or having a new species verified/confirmed by your peers. Apples, oranges, and pears.

  28. DWA responds:

    Alamo:

    I need to start remembering to use “one” instead of “you” when I’m replying to someone, but saying something intended for the generic “somebody” rather than the person I’m specifically replying to. Sorry.

    asecretcountry:

    Oh, I have no problems speaking openly about people’s knowledge – or ignorance – of evidence. Keep talking about bits of plaster. All it will make me wonder is how such a minimal level of interest finds anything to do here. I mean, I don’t go trolling crop-circle sites….heeeyyyyy….”Please do some reading on science and cryptozoology….” Um, you haven’t done any, very clearly, on this topic, but I’m not surprised. I’m far better read up and thought up than any scientist whose opinion I have read who disagrees with me. It’s obvious in the things they say. When it comes to this subject the vast majority of scientists are, basically, ignorant laymen. That’s how they talk.

    Bits of plaster. Whoooa.

  29. DWA responds:

    asecretcountry: I should add:

    If you’ve had no success “finding unusual beasties” as you put it, I’m not surprised. Not looking for things the way a scientist looks at them will do that.

  30. DWA responds:

    (asecretcountry: I should also add that you put up way too much to shoot at.)

    “Meldrum is a great scientist.” He’s bit’s-of-plaster dude. Make up your mind. As Alamo said: him over you, every time.

    “Hint..thats argumentum ignoratum..
    Classic error in logic..I cannot think of any other explanation therefore..”

    No. YOU can’t. That’s the problem. I mean, you can’t think of one that makes sense, but you don’t think that’s something you need to do. Nope, three possibilities, and I listed the two other than what the evidence seems to actually point to. This is what being read up and thought up about this will do for you.

    “And no proof no proof “bores” keyboard researchers because they know its true.”

    It doesn’t bother those of us who understand that the evidence points to an unlisted animal. Proof will happen, sooner or later. It’s those who got into this pursuing blind belief, got stiffed, and are now over at the opposite extreme out of, sheer frustration, perhaps? that are bothered by the lack of proof…which is something that we delegate to a scientific establishment that has fallen down on the job. Um, you wouldn’t be one of those, by any chance…? Blind believer or fallen-down scientific establishment, take your pick.

    OK. There’s way too much left to fire at there, but time to attend to the day.

    (For someone who doesn’t seem interested in this you sure put up long posts.)

  31. DWA responds:

    Alamo: with regard to your question.

    One advantage that the legal establishment has in trying a case is type specimens. We know that members of our species were involved and we can trace DNA directly to them.

    Personally, the bigfoot DNA flap doesn’t interest me much, as we cannot – as has been pointed out here – identify potential sasquatch DNA with a type specimen. We still need that specimen.

    I believe, however, that far more than enough evidence exists to provisionally establish the existence of a species awaiting formal scientific classification.

    That science doesn’t consider that evidence to be proof is – in the starkest terms – science’s problem. Everything else with this much evidence is proven. Time to get cracking, scientific mainstream. Proof is your job.

  32. Alamo responds:

    Hi Loren,

    Thanks for the response. I realize there are fundamental differences, but had hoped that we were talking more along the lines of different types of citrus (oranges and lemons maybe?) and could perhaps graft a branch here for our purposes. What I am trying to do is find an ending to this story that doesn’t require Sasquatch to die for our scientific sins.

    Some similarities:

    1. Both use forensics (argumentation before a forum)
    2. Both use the same scientific principles and techniques to assess and validate evidence
    3. Both argue cases in front of a group of peers that decide on the evidence
    4. Both have a standardized procedure to present arguments

    One of the biggest differences and, in retrospect, the probable sticking point for the analogy is that a courtroom jury has no specific skillset and can asses evidence from a wide selection of scientific experts. A scientific peer group is limited to judging a very narrow range of evidence. Proving the presence of a body in absentia requires the acceptance of cumulative evidence from multiple disciplines, something a peer group is not able to do.

    I guess the way the science will finally get done is if a fiber study is done, then a DNA study, then a study of eyewitness accounts and statistical correlations, etc… each within its own subset of science, each before its own peer group. Then someone else would need to take all of those and tie them all together in a publication for some sort of multidisciplinary journal. We are a long way from any of that, perhaps hundreds of years if past scientific progress is any indication.

  33. Alamo responds:

    If I were to swear out a complaint against Sasquatch: trespassing, breaking and entering, disturbing the peace and terrorizing… the existing physical evidence would be enough to cause any judge in the country to issue a warrant for his arrest (as long as I didn’t tell him it was Sasquatch)… and identify the culprit conclusively upon capture.

    I guess it’s more semantics than anything, the presence of an uncatalogued hominid might be proven by DNA… but not necessarily what we know as Sasquatch.

  34. norman-uk responds:

    JC_McKellar

    You have summed it up beautifully ! A nice contrast to asecretcountry’s froth and blather !

    I dont see why Dr Meldrum or her backer should not have an eye to the financial aspects of her teams research. She is in business and that would seem to be the responsible thing to do.

    Dr meldrums lates communication seems to be quite encouraging , hope this link works.

  35. norman-uk responds:

    Sorry the 2nd from last line should be Dr ketchums latest communication…………



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.