norseman

Ketchum DNA report revisited

100 posts in this topic

For the sake of not hijacking the Olympic project nest thread anymore.

 

Please continue the discussion here.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to an analysis by Bill Munns, this is a chewbacca mask with its hair reworked. Interestingly, its hair is purple. I think it's iconic of hiflier's reasoning

 

6f2jtBf_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

 

Dr Ketchum claims she analyzed its DNA as part of the study, and assures people that it's an actual Sasquatch

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which I think solidifies the mindset that both the convoluted DNA results and Matilda was a premeditated hoax from the get go.

 

Interestingly enough her first act after releasing the hoax was parallel to Standing. She tried to introduce legislation to protect the species. If either of them ever truly proved the species to be real? I would support it 200%!

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

According to an analysis by Bill Munns, this is a chewbacca mask with its hair reworked. Interestingly, its hair is purple. I think it's iconic of hiflier's reasoning

 

6f2jtBf_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

 

Dr Ketchum claims she analyzed its DNA as part of the study, and assures people that it's an actual Sasquatch

 

May I ask what sample number this is referring to? Wait, I found it. It's sample number 37. That sample number also refers to the 'sleeping juvenile' so I need to see if the two are referring to the same thing.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still digging into this Matilda thing. Why? because I want the truth of it that's why. It's easy to say Matilda is a hoax. But I want back up. I want the whole story. This stuff takes time so be patient with me. On the surface it looks like the habutuators who sold the footage to Erickson hoaxed it. Hair samples related to this Matilda came back as Human from at least two sources. Still piecing things together. Looks like Erickson believed the habituators were on the up and up and purchased both the Matilda video as well as the Matilda juvenile lying down. Ketchum trusted Erickson as a good researcher and source and so unknowingly presented Matilda as being real. There's more to do on this of course to get it all straightened out.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After much time spent I've come to the realization that I'm in no way better to debate this than the historical record. I have run across much that I was unaware of but the things is all it has done, believe it or not, is show the alignment against peer review and its dialogue. A dialogue that IMHO had constantly moved the goal post for acceptance of the paper. Goal posts that when confronted and met with compliance were yet moved again and again. There were unethical actions taken by the peer reviewers and strong attempts to undermine Ketchum's study as time after time criteria for acceptance was issued and met by the Sasquatch Genome Projects team- only to have publishing the paper thwarted by yet more and more demands in the face expert support of the process and technology used and the results obtained.

 

In other words folks, there was NO WAY this paper was going to be published no matter what hoops the team jumped through or what suggestions and criteria they satisfied. Period. Sure, call me a conspiracy crackpot or whatever you like, the fact of the matter is that study was NEVER going to be allowed to be published. NEVER. And there is no possibility that I could ever cite everything and every example in just this one post.

 

Tomorrow I'm hitting the road for a two month trip cross country; something I and my spouse have never done. I will have WI-FI most of the time so will try my darnedest to stay with this. Suffice it to say for the moment, I will stick with the mtDNA results and the procedures used to gain those results which will include everything regarding the quality of the samples. I will attempt to stay as far away from opinion as possible and try to stay with only the science. The science and how it was obtained via standard operation procedures will speak for itself. And since I am not an expert I will have to rely on source arguments pro and con to arrive at a consensus beyond what I or any of you may think regarding this topic.

 

I will do my objective best to present the arguments and counter arguments that have surrounded this study. In the end it may change my own mind about things and I say this because I want the truth of it all for myself gained from my own research and not just through rumor, hearsay, or the opinion of others. Personally, I do not think there is a better way for me to approach this. Your opinions are welcome of course but until I research and review every inch of this they will probably matter little. Taking a hiatus to delve deeper into this may even be the avenue I should take but for now I'm here and so will at least try to get a scientific pros and cons from you members. This is going to be interesting.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H,

 

Succinct and spot on, lad.

 

IMO, Nature's reaction to the original presentation of Ketchum's work clearly defined their (and probably most of other such entities) kowtow to the altar of PC'ness. Subsequently, did the offensive to deride and discredit her work become necessary as her isolation and vilification was requisite in order to CYA?

 

As Americans, we have a historical record of challenging authority and status quo as after all, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights pretty much lay all that out rather plainly.

 

The disconnect is many take scientific publications as purely scientific in nature and decline to acknowledge/question the political undertones and other gambits that may be lying just underneath the surface. 

 

Am am in no way concluding Ketchum is infallible however, the ferocity of her detractors does give reason to consider, did they really have something to fear from the findings she brought to light?

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, hiflier!! My respect for you just went WAY up!

 

I know Melba, and she was 100% honest in every part of that study. I think the more you learn about it, the more you will admire her for the sacrifices she has made and the persecution she has endured.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said:

Am am in no way concluding Ketchum is infallible however, the ferocity of her detractors does give reason to consider, did they really have something to fear from the findings she brought to light?

 

A lot of dialogue across the various threads on this Forum over the years since the study came out would say, yes. But, then too, I haven't run a cross a consistent thread of dialogue that hasn't been broken up by venomous opinion and constant strafeing by skeptics. Something against odds that I would like to see not happen here.

 

4 minutes ago, Sasfooty said:

..........I think the more you learn about it, the more you will admire her for the sacrifices she has made and the persecution she has endured.

 

 

For the record, I already do simply on the basis of her strength to fight the battle for years. But saying that it in no way impacts the actual science. And as much as I admire people with that kind of focus they are not perfect. That's why even their opinions on whatever it is they are debating cannot be taken into account. Facts are facts. And no one should consider those opinions as a sway in what ones thinks. I'm a Human also with opinions which will be the hardest thing for me to ignore, but ignore I must. And I don't care how this turns out no one will ever see a snarky remark from me one way or another. There's simply no room for attitude when science and methodology is more important to impartially address. 

 

I thank you and Yuchi1 for the encouragement. I'm very much looking forward to this. Enough said because where to begin is going to take some figuring out because confusion cannot be allowed to enter into this anywhere. It needs a clean logical start and timeline simply for readability- never mind for truth. That comes at the end and for proponents it could be for good or for bad.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On ‎8‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 2:12 PM, norseman said:

Interestingly enough her first act after releasing the hoax was parallel to Standing. She tried to introduce legislation to protect the species. If either of them ever truly proved the species to be real? I would support it 200%!

 

 

As would I, Norseman, as would I. Sitting on the fence hasn't been that much fun or rewarding I have to admit and have always been looking for a way off of it. Not being a knower this could be the way- one side or the other. 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add my congrats to the ones you've gotten so far, hiflier! I, too, am soooooo impressed by your determination, and by your refusal to be swayed by offhand comments from 1) people whose intent might be questionable, and 2) people who may be perfectly honorable, honest people, but don't have the skills to make judgments about this. From my point of view, all the goal-post moving you mentioned in the other thread (and that Yuchi1 and Sasfooty remind us of here) is sufficient evidence that Melba Ketchum's discoveries are right on; because, as you said in that other thread (and as others have said), why would there be such vigorous goal-post moving if those discoveries were not right on? But for people who think scientific verification of the hard science is important, it's great that you have the willingness to attempt that verification. 

 

And forgive me if this is already known to you, but I believe that MK Davis said, in a recent-ish (?) interview, that he had seen email correspondence from George Lucas indicating that Lucas had had multiple encounters with BF as a child; so the fact that "Matilda" looks like Chewbaca is because Chewbaca's appearance is based on the appearance of one or more actual BF. (There are many species of BF, and they do not all look alike.) 

 

I can't find the link to that interview, but I'll keep looking. 

 

So anyway, anyone who presumes that Matilda's resemblance to Chewbaca is evidence of a hoax (and I'm not referring to you, because you are working so hard NOT to make presumptions, and have already said you don't accept that "hoax" verdict -- good for you!) doesn't have all the facts at their fingertips.

 

I know that this has been known for a while, by many people (that Lucas is an experiencer/knower, I mean); but I thought this bore repeating. I know it's just a small piece of information in that big pile you're going through, but it's something.... 

 

Good luck to you, hiflier! And I hope you and your wife have a GREAT trip!

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you LeafTalker for your kind words. This has been interesting to research because going back to the beginning is rather fractured in detail. One thing I would like to begin with is Adrian Erickson. There has been some dialogue regarding Dr. Ketchum being part of the Erickson Project. I have not been able to find anything that links her to it. Beyond the necessary arrangement where funding was secured I've discovered no indication that Dr. Ketchum was ever actually a part of the Erickson project as in being an active or even a supporting member. Yes, Erickson and Ketchum did news conferences together but in an interview recently with Erickson https://www.dietiefe.com/?p=1148 (2016)he stated who the Erickson team consisted of:

 

"The Erickson Project is and always was intended to be 100% authentic. Our team, Leila, Dennis and myself, and our contributors Dr. Bindernagel and Dr. Meldrum are 100% upstanding, reliable citizens. The intention was to prove to the world the people coming forward with Sasquatch stories are not liars, and to prove the species exists. There absolutely never was any intend to hoax, or present fraudulent information, or make money from the project."

 

And from here:http://www.milehighmysteryconference.com/albums/album_image/9046631/8288846.htm

 

" The five year long project resulted in video evidence, audio evidence, and DNA samples in the form of saliva, hair and eventually blood samples that were contributed to the Sasquatch Genome Project and Dr. Melba Ketchum."

 

As one can see Dr. Ketchum is not mentioned. Adrian Erickson funded the Sasquatch Genome Project which helped pay for the analysis of his DNA samples from the Erickson Project along with other testing of samples beyond his own and That seems to be the only link between the two people and their respective projects. From here I move onto Dr' Ketchums history and qualifications for running the SGP. What she knew to expect and how she attempted to avoid shoddy technique in the testing of the samples. THAT has turned out to be a fascinating investigation. 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exciting, hiflier. I think the story, as you are able to reconstruct it, will be one of the few (beyond one written by Melba herself, or one of the Erickson Project people) that I would be willing to read!

 

And that's cool, that you're having fun so far. Awesome. 

 

You go!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is intriguing at the very least. Now here is an article that I found herehttp://www.oregonbigfoot.com/melba-ketchum-Bigfoot-DNA-study_2011.php  and I'm sure many have already come across it but there is a point to make so I'll go ahead and post it. The bolded, italicized, and underlined text is mine.:

 

"April, 2001:

A British expedition team is led to a hollow cedar tree in the Kingdom of Bhutan, in the eastern Himalayas by Sonam Dhendup, the King of Bhutan's official yeti hunter. A long black hair was found and DNA analysis was conducted by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Oxford. “We found some DNA in it, but we don’t know what it is... It’s not a human, not a bear or anything else we have so far been able to identify. It’s a mystery and I never thought this would end in a mystery. We have never encountered DNA that we couldn’t recognize before.” Sykes was the first scientist to extract DNA from archaeological bone specimens. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown Bear and the Asiatic Black Bear.

 

2009:

Josh Gates and the Destination Truth team return to Bhutan to look for the Yeti after having found tracks on the season premiere of season two. The team recovers a hair sample and it is brought to Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics.

 

Dr. Ketchum states, "This sample did test very clearly on the human panel of markers.  That makes it a primate, and it makes it a large primate." When Gates asks her if contamination could be an issue, she replies, "The hair, visually, is not humanIt's courser than horse tail hair... Initial searches indicate that it's an unknown sequence. There are literally millions of sequences in this database.  And we're really shocked that it didn't match any of the species exactly in the database... If we're going to prove that there potentially is a new species, with this first hair sample, we really need more hair samples like it.  And once you establish there is a group of animals, that will go a long ways towards proving that there is a new species indeed."

 

So, what is the point I'm making here.  The first time around sample went to Dr. Sykes. The Second time the sample went to Dr. Ketchum....Why the change? Why not stay with Dr. Sykes. Lack of funding? Lack of trust? Failure to find Sasquatch/Yeti DNA the first time around? Was it because the Ketchum's Sasquatch Genome Project was by then (2009) in full swing and fully funded? Now I know these kinds of questions may not seem important to some but they are to me. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to find the answers to everything that I wonder about and maybe the answers are somewhere out there.

 

I do know that Josh Gates, paranormal researcher, and Destination Truth was in it's second season on the SyFY Network when he sought out Dr. Ketchum. Rob Lowe in fact seems to be following in not only Leonard Nimoy's footsteps but it would seen Josh Gates' as well. And then of course there's Matt Moneymaker's Finding Bigfoot. It begs the question of just how well do all of these people know each other? Who's in the loop and who isn't. Melba Ketchum didn't believe in Sasquatch before her project began. She had done a couple of tests for some samples sent to her pretty early on but was probably an eye-roller in the beginning. BUT she does seem to have a paranormal side to her to this day so I can see how she might have gotten swept up into the Bigfoot arena. Before that though she didn't even know who was who so IMHO she was the perfect person to set up with a hoax being naïve and all.

 

I cab see where she could've been easily duped by "Matilda" and Smeja and perhaps others and that's why I think it's vital to show the methodology she used to stay out of the quagmire. She was a lot smarter in that respect than some have given her credit for. Whether or not the samples were any good or the results questionable, which they are, the plan she had in place for herself and her team was very correct. They did the right things the right way as far as getting the samples tested and in implementing that whole idea of double blind testing. More on that later. I think Erickson is behind me at this point and it's probably a good time to move onto Smeja and that whole ball of confusion. Also there will be attention paid to Dr. Ketchum herself and the respect for her expertise in her field.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites