"We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend; and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form."
- C.S. Lewis
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
... hopefully.
***UPDATE 2/16*** Sasquatch Friday came and went. The consensus, I think, is that the study was published in a dubious science "journal" because reputable journals did not want to jeopardize their reputations by examining a Bigfoot paper. I believe this neither proves or disproves the validity of the study, but in a sense leaves us back where we started.
A few years ago I told my wife that I thought proof of sasquatch (a large North American ape population) would come via DNA evidence, not photographic evidence (since the already rock solid photographic evidence hasn't convinced the world yet) and not through a dead body (since the animal is so elusive and rare).
I've also mentioned some DNA studies on this site from time to time. Finally, hopefully, we'll have the first DNA study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal on Friday.
THREE BIGFOOT GENOMES SEQUENCED IN 5-YEAR DNA STUDY
New Research Paper Published Friday Shows Homo Sapiens/Unknown Hominin Hybrid Species Extant in North America
DALLAS, February 10th
A team of scientists will publish their five-year long study of DNA samples from a novel hominin species, commonly known as “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch,” on Friday February 15th, 2013. The results suggest that the legendary Sasquatch is extant in North America and is a human relative that arose approximately 13,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an novel primate species.
This study concludes, from what I understand, that sasquatch is, in a sense, "human." I think that is a loose definition of the understanding of what a human is. According to the thousands of reported sightings sasquatch is highly intelligent, but leaves no "cave art," uses no tools, and exhibits purely animal behavior. In the Bigfoot world there are essentially two camps: the sasquatch-is-human camp and the sasquatch-is-monkey camp. I'm in the latter camp.
The author of this study says, "Buckle up!" We'll see if it's worth the ride.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6779.
Comments on "Proof Of Bigfoot Coming Friday ...":
3. Karl
- 02/13/2013 9:17 am CST
"Problem two: This is a brand new journal. Was it launched JUST for this paper? Well, this is an interesting and HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS twist. We do not know what the standards are for review. There are no rules for starting up your own journal and calling it “peer reviewed”. And, indeed, that’s what what done (from Sasquatch Genome Project) . . ."
"Problem three: The paper costs $30 to download. No academic institution is going to have access to a new journal site so they will have to pay to review it. Some Bigfoot bloggers have received embargoed copies. Bigfoot bloggers. With NO scientific qualifications. I have yet to see any genetic specialists comment on the paper but it’s very early and I expect some will. I have requested access to the paper."
"So Dr. Ketchum chose not to play by the rules and forged her own way. Why was the paper rejected by journals? Perhaps not only was it controversial but could it have been poor quality? I will have to wait to see what experts say but from what I have heard from those who did see it, it was not of good quality. It is more likely that it had some fatal flaw as that the scientific community was ganging up against her. There are PLENTY of journals that would have published this paper. She chose this route. That does not bode well for this to be taken at all seriously. Most people who compare themselves to Galileo end up NOT producing something earth shaking, they are making excuses. When you propose the novel RESULT without having collaborated with the true experts in the field to check your work, odds are you made some error along the way. It reeks of pseudoscience.
"Ketchum has also launched her own website called the Melba Ketchum Global Sasquatch Foundation:
Due to the efforts of our founder Dr. Melba Ketchum it has been proven that the Sasquatch are a human hybrid. Here at G.S.F. we have made it a priority to protect these indigenous people from being hunted, harassed, or even killed.
"That’s more than a little bit premature. On this site you can see pictures of supposed Bigfoot stick structures and a photo of a matted horse’s mane. Having heard about this before, Ketchum has alleged that Sasquatch “braids” the horse’s mane.
"My initial opinions of this latest news? It’s a fiasco. It’s unprofessional and disappointing. The websites are amateurish, the goals are delusional and it smacks of a self-serving money making venture. Melba has positioned herself as a self-named expert with additional projects set up to collect funds and protect an animal she insists exists. It has not been confirmed, contrary to her opinion that she has “proven” it.
"As a good skeptic, I am COMPLETELY willing to change my mind if the paper itself provides scientific value. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’m not hopeful. This has been a long and torturous road not only for Ketchum but for those of us who awaited the results. This is what we get. Experts will weigh in. We’ll have updates as this story progresses.
Karl here: I have to say I'm with the "good skeptic" above. It'd be very cool if this turns out to be scientifically valid and if it is, the scientific community will jump to study the new creature. I just have a hard time believing that will be the case.
5. Karl
- 02/13/2013 9:59 am CST
I agree Bird, even if this is exposed it won't deter BF believers. Nor should it, if they/you believe there is solid evidence for belief.
My bet is that this will be difficult to completely expose as a "hoax" in that obviously *something* was studied. Some kind of sample yielded DNA, that was sequenced. I personally find it much more likely that contaminated samples account for the fact DNA identical to human DNA was found. From what I can gather the samples weren't collected by trained scientists or even trained forensics experts, and contamination via breath, cough, sneeze, contact, or the like is therefore highly likely. And the samples are only assumed to be BF to begin with - no photographic or eyewitness evidence exists of the BF leaving the sample so it could have been any number of other creatures. But still even if that is true, saying "this is junk science with a profit motive" isn't quite the same as saying "this is a total 100% made-up, invented from whole cloth hoax." So even if scientists scorn and debunk the report there will likely remain some level of arguability for those predisposed to believe that it's a case of heroic Ketchum vs. the skeptical scientific establishment.
You have mentioned dermal ridges a time or two in these threads, in connection with Meldrum. What is your take on the statement in that atheist thread that "several skeptics have done experiments to show, for example, that these dermal ridges actually come from the casting process used to make treads for fake prints."
6. Bird
- 02/13/2013 10:03 am CST
Well said.
About the dermal ridges, I'm sure some have been fabricated with the method you mention. However, skeptics are not typically experts at bi-pedalism and foot anatomy (like Meldrum is) nor are they typically experts at latent finger print analysis (like Jimmy Chillcut). Meldrum and Chillcut say dermal ridges in some prints are legit.
7. Karl
- 02/13/2013 11:57 am CST
I read a little more about the study/report. Apparently they claimed to have 110 specimens of BF DNA from 34 different sites?
Wouldn't that kind of undercut the argument that it's not surprising nobody has seen a BF because they are so secretive and rare and only live in really remote places where there are enormous tracts of undeveloped and uninhabited land? If some amateur specimen-gatherers can come up with 110 DNA samples to help this Ketchum lady out, I'd expect someone would have recent, incontrovertible digitally recorded or other indisputible proof of a BF. I mean - I bet the same number of volunteers couldn't have come up with 110 specimens of Grizzly or Mountain Lion DNA from 34 different sites in the same amount of time. Or if they could, at least some of them would/could have clearly filmed a grizzly or mountain lion while they were at it.
8. Bird
- 02/13/2013 12:21 pm CST
Wouldn't that kind of undercut the argument that it's not surprising nobody has seen a BF
Plenty of people have seen them, actually.
If some amateur specimen-gatherers can come up with 110 DNA samples to help this Ketchum lady out, I'd expect someone would have recent, incontrovertible digitally recorded or other indisputible proof of a BF
For one, how would you define a professional "specimen gatherer" as opposed to an amateur? If you mean scientists, there are virtually no scientists working on BF study. Also, I'd argue that specimen gathering doesn't have to be done by a scientist to be professional in quality.
Secondly, there is (supposedly) high def digital footage that has yet to be released. According to the Erickson Project (those who supposedly gathered the digital footage), their footage was shown to scientists but the scientists said "we need DNA." It's generally agreed upon in the BF world that no photograph or video footage will sway science or the public. I'd agree.
11. Karl
- 02/13/2013 1:40 pm CST
C'mon, Bird (#8). At least the first part of your response strikes me as a bit of a dodge, relying on some imprecise wording by me. My point is that if BF's are numerous enough that volunteer BF enthusiasts can come up with 110 DNA samples from 34 different sites, then BF's must be at least as numerous as cougars and Grizzlies, if not more so. Yet you don't have to look far to find non-fuzzy, recent, digital, telephoto, National Geographic quality photos taken by amateurs and pros alike of Grizzlies and cougars in their natural habitat. We don't have to rely upon native american legends, undocumentable first person accounts, plaster casts of pawprints and grainy, blurred, quite-possibly-faked photo and video evidence to postulate the existence of cougars and grizzlies.
When I've asked in the past how BF's could go undiscovered by the scientific community (who are AVID to discover ANY new species let alone one so spectacular as this and who DO explore/research in remote areas even if not looking for BF's per se) for so long, the answer I get relies on the vastness of the unsettled North American west, the inaccessibility of some parts of mountainous Appalachia, etc. They haven't been discovered by science the theory (at least in part) goes, because they are relatively few in number, uber-secretive and elusive, live in remote areas, etc. But if that is so then how the heck can a bunch of "enthusiasts" gather 110 DNA samples from 34 sites? And to complete the circle of the argument, IF those enthusiasts are able to compile that much DNA and IF so many people have seen them and are seeing them, then the reason offered for why science hasn't discovered them must be untrue - they must not be quite so few in number, they must be at least as numerous as grizzlies, cougars or something along those lines. Which begs the question again of why we don't have as many good photos of BF's as we do grizzlies and cougars.
By amateur, I mean the people gathering the DNA samples aren't (I don't gather) trained in either science or forensics. I think their amateur status calls into question the quality and likelihood of contamination of any sample they've gathered. But in this particular line of argument I don't mean it as necessarily pejorative. I just mean that if a similar appeal had gone out, over a similar period of time, to a similar number of people (also amateurs - no negative connotation) asking for Cougar DNA . . . I wonder whether 110 Cougar DNA samples from 34 different sites across the country could have been collected by non-scientists. Maybe but I kind of doubt it, though that's just my gut opinion.
12. Bird
- 02/13/2013 2:01 pm CST
My point is that if BF's are numerous enough that volunteer BF enthusiasts can come up with 110 DNA samples from 34 different sites, then BF's must be at least as numerous as cougars and Grizzlies,
Karl, how can you assume that BF's would be as numerous as cougars and grizzlies given your assertion? Seriously, lay it out for me because I am truly not understanding your logic. The missing variables are how much time was involved in obtaining the DNA and how many volunteers obtained it. If it takes 1 volunteer a week to obtain cougar DNA, who's to say it doesn't take 1 volunteer 6 months to obtain sasquatch DNA?
They haven't been discovered by science the theory (at least in part) goes, because they are relatively few in number, uber-secretive and elusive, live in remote areas, etc.
That's true. And I'd add that they have not been discovered by science because scientists in general are not risk takers, and therefore they are not looking. The scientists who do look (e.g., Meldrum) are often ridiculed and in professional jeopardy.
But if that is so then how the heck can a bunch of "enthusiasts" gather 110 DNA samples from 34 sites?
Because the investigators (the ones you call "enthusiasts") are out there looking and scientists are not. You can't find what you're not looking for.
IF those enthusiasts are able to compile that much DNA and IF so many people have seen them and are seeing them, then the reason offered for why science hasn't discovered them must be untrue - they must not be quite so few in number, they must be at least as numerous as grizzlies, cougars or something along those lines.
Again, that doesn't jibe because you're not factoring in the amount of time involved in obtaining the DNA. Also, I wouldn't say "so many" people are seeing BFs. Sightings are rare, but they do happen frequently. To my knowledge there has never been a study on this, but I would assume that if 10,000 people see a cougar every day in America, maybe 1 or 2 see a sasquatch in that same time frame.
I think their amateur status calls into question the quality and likelihood of contamination of any sample they've gathered.
I completely agree. I think if this "journal" is indeed legit, we'll soon find out if it holds up to scrutiny with regard to the integrity of the specimens.
13. Karl
- 02/13/2013 3:38 pm CST
I'm sorry Bird, that WAS sloppy of me. Looking quickly at numbers available via a fast, short Google search I see the cougar population is substantially higher than I realized. I'll still say that my gut tells me that if BF believers are right, the roughly 1,200 grizzlies in the lower 48 must be a fair approximation of the number of BF's there would be. In fact, given the very limited range of grizzlies in the lower 48 compared to the much larger geographic range in which BF's allegedly have been sighted, I expect the number of BF's (if they existed) would have to be higher than the number of grizzlies. Yet as rare as undeniable, documentable grizzly sightings are in the lower 48, they do happen. And while it ain't easy to get grizzly DNA, it can be done.
On the time to collect the samples . . . I was envisioning a scenario in which this researcher put out a request to the BF believing community or some segment of it for samples, and within some period of months or a few years, received 110 samples from 34 sites, all collected within that time frame. If you're suggesting that the DNA samples were compiled over a much longer time frame and saved by these people and then surrendered to the researcher - then I guess I can't argue with the fact that, like evolution, given enough time nearly anything is possible. Reading a little more on how, by whom and over what period of time the samples were collected, it appears that the answer is itself an undisclosed secret. Hopefully to be revealed in the soon to be released paper.
Whatever the time frame was, I'd be interested to know it. But if an animal that size is common enough that it is reasonable to believe 110 DNA samples could be collected from 34 different sites around the country over ANY period of time less than 30 years . . . I'd say that it's UNreasonable to believe the same said animal hasn't been discovered yet.
I used "bigfoot enthusiasts" because that's what the articles I googled up today almost uniformly called these folks.
I'd quibble a bit with the suggestion that "you can't find what you're not looking for." While scientists aren't looking for BF, they ARE in remote regions of N America studying wolves, grizzlies, smaller flora and fauna, etc. And I would think a field biologist who was in those areas who did find evidence of (or who saw) a heretofore undiscovered giant hominid or great ape while studying the spotted owl or timber wolf, would stop and take note. I belive many scientific "finds" of new species occurred when researchers were actually in the wild looking for (or studying) something else. It's not like biologists are saying "oh well, since there are obviously no BF's in the great north american west or Appalachia, there is no point in putting any field biologists out there in those places to study anything else either."
14. Bird
- 02/13/2013 3:54 pm CST
I'd agree with your assessment on the rarity of grizzlies and BFs. One important difference would be that, as smart as a bear may be, BFs are, according to eyewitnesses, highly intelligent and highly adept at avoiding detection.
If an animal is motivated to not be seen by humans, then the animal typically "wins" in that scenario. Let me give you an anecdotal example. Almost four years ago we moved out to the country. We have all kinds of wildlife here, including an overabundance of coyotes. Coyotes are everywhere. You hear them at night. You see paw prints in your field. They raid chicken coops, etc. However, despite all the evidence of their presence, I haven't seen one the entire time we've been here ... and it's beautiful over here, so I'm always outside. My point is if coyotes, which are abundant and who live so closely to humans, are so good at not being seen by humans, how much more a rare, highly intelligent ape?
Good point about field biologists. Who knows what the ratio is, but I'd say that for every field biologist in the field there are probably hundreds of campers, hunters, and outdoors enthusiasts. That's not to say that some field biologist has not seen a sasquatch at some point, but where do they go from there? A brief sighting is by no means a "discovery." I think in those instances they simply decide to not risk their professional career by admitting they have seen something that supposedly is not supposed to exist.
Leave a Comment:
A quick Google search prioritizing results to those within the last week, turned up this thread. Leaving aside the atheism (as I think it's probably a net-neutral as far as whether they'd believe in BF or not) can you shed any light on what this guy is saying? True/False? Impact if true?
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Bigfoot-Genetics-Paper-Hoax?pid=257319#pid257319
Here's another story dated today on the potential problems with the publication. Thoughts? Just a bunch of naysayers without a real leg to stand on? It does seem to me that if the DNA study was legit and incontrovertible any reputable scientific, peer reviewed journal would be falling all over itself wanting to be the first to break the story, after Ketchum did the legwork and stuck her neck out there taking the risk
http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ketchum-bigfoot-dna-paper-released-problems-with-questionable-publication/