Erickson Project

[Guest]

An NDA would be required to protect intellectual property for unfiled patent rights while a new process for species identification is being developed and verified. I'm just guessing, of course.

[Guest]

Bigfootnis said:

I am tired of hearing about these non-disclosure agreements. I am lawyer and I can tell you their not worth the paper their printed on.

Susi says:

If _they_ are not worth the paper that they are printed on, why do we have them?

[Guest]

Substab said:

(paraphrased)We've decided this name may work:

HOMO SAPIENS SESQUEQIENSIS.

Susi says:

How did you arrive at this name? It sounds silly to me, but I'm not a scientist, yet isn't there something better than this name?

I'm afraid the name will garner more jeers from the skeptics.

I'm a believer and I'm embarrassed by the way that name sounds.

The last name sounds like something out of a Spanish Love Song to me..

Also, Does it have to be Homo Sapiens? That's really going to scare people off..

[Guest]

Substab said:

(paraphrased)We've decided this name may work:

HOMO SAPIENS SESQUEQIENSIS.

Susi says:

How did you arrive at this name? It sounds silly to me, but I'm not a scientist, yet isn't there something better than this name?

I'm afraid the name will garner more jeers from the skeptics.

I'm a believer and I'm embarrassed by the way that name sounds.

The last name sounds like something out of a Spanish Love Song to me..

Also, Does it have to be Homo Sapiens? That's really going to scare people off..

If they are HOMO SAPIENS they are HOMO SAPIENS......shall we call a FELINE a CANINE because dog people will be more comfortable?

Edited October 1, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[Guest]

(groan)

Absolutely, I feel the exact same way..

I see myself ending up looking exactly like that in the not too distant future with the way things are going.

However, I will die with hope still in my heart of hearing that the BF species has been verified! Finally.

I think that it would be easier to be a skeptic.

Perhaps I should change/flip sides..

[Guest Stubstad]

Fascinating, but I didn't think they ever found Zana. You know your timing is truly ironic.

Jodie:

Your post, above, is also fascinating. What is it about my timing that is ironic?

Further, the testing of "Zana" was either two different mtDNA sequences, from the HV1 Region as I recall, of Khwit (her son) for sure and maybe Zana's exhumed skull. The Russians have published pictures of two exhumed skulls: one they knew was Khwit (the gravestone said so and a picture of Khwit also exists from the 1950's) and one they believed was Zana. Baring a highly unlikely mutation, each individual would have had the same mtDNA to a "T". Either they both had this, or they were satisfied with Khwit's DNA alone; I'm not sure which.

Zana evidently really existed, in a form of captivity, but she died towards the early part of the 20th century before anyone thought to take a picture of her.

All in all, I still find the Story of Zana and her offspring (and there were several) credible. Her youngest, Khwit, is the only one anyone could find a picture of since he died about 60 years ago, after cameras were commonplace, even in the Georgia region of Russia.

Have you seen Khwit's picture? No, he doesn't look like a sasquatch or an almasty, but he doesn't look "human" either. In fact, he looks like the veritable half-breed he may well have been.

Richard

[Guest]

Hi Richard- I looked and found the story where they found the female skeleton curled up in the grave on her side. She had an unusually large skull, but they also said it belonged to a black woman. I've seen Kwhit's photos, he doesn't look unusual to me, just biracial. However, I never found anything regarding any DNA analysis other than they thought it would be a good idea to have it done.

As for what I meant about timing, you were offering to post some sequences Dr. Ketchum might have a legal claim to the night before she is supposed to talk about her research at the conference in Oklahoma. I highly doubt you needed for me to explain that. That was incredibly tacky behavior IMO, but then I'm not the most polite person in the world either, so who am I to judge other socially inept people.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest Stubstad]

Hi Richard- I looked and found the story where they found the female skeleton curled up in the grave on her side. She had an unusually large skull, but they also said it belonged to a black woman. I've seen Kwhit's photos, he doesn't look unusual to me, just biracial. However, I never found anything regarding any DNA analysis other than they thought it would be a good idea to have it done.

As for what I meant about timing, you were offering to post some sequences Dr. Ketchum might have a legal claim to the night before she is supposed to talk about her research at the conference in Oklahoma. I highly doubt you needed for me to explain that. That was incredibly tacky behavior IMO, but then I'm not the most polite person in the world either, so who am I to judge other socially inept people.

It wasn't tacky because Ketchum's talk in Oklahoma isn't supposed to cover actual DNA sequences to my knowledge anyway. Whether it does or doesn't, I'm sure we'll all hear about what she (and Paulides) said there, assuming of course they even show up.

In fact, your remark, Jodie, seemed to be related to the "Tale of Zana" and her mitochondrial DNA, not the publishing of sasquatch DNA in general. My point was that OTHERS have published purported sasquatch DNA sequences that we all have access to. Some day, maybe we'll have access to "Ketchum's" sequences from her directly-- but no one knows that for sure. If we don't, I may publish the sequences where no valid NDA exists, and if I get permission to do so from the sample providers, the rest of the DNA sequences as well. According to the NDA with Ketchum I worked under until October of last year, Ketchum had no intellectual or any other exclusive rights to the DNA sequences WE found. We all did, including her co-researchers, the sample providers, and most importantly those of us who paid for the sequencing.

You know as well as I do that even if she has a great "litigation attorney" as the title of the website mentioned in this thread implies, neither Hank nor any other attorney will get anywhere at all with litigation -- except the costly mess of a frivolous lawsuit. A while ago, I did talk to one of my own attorneys about this very issue, and from a legal standpoint I'm OK--in fact more than just OK.

The only reason none of these data have been published yet by me is that I really DO want to give Ketchum a chance to do so first. I'm sure I'm not her "friend" any longer, but I still love her as a fellow human being, in spite of her recent actions at the behest of "Hank" or whoever -- even though we no longer work together and have some "fatal differences" which I won't go into here.

Richard

[Guest]

Actions speak louder than words Richard, it doesn't matter what Dr. Ketchum is going to talk about. If you state you are going to post something that involved her project prematurely there is no other way to interpret those actions. Either they are malicious or you really are socially inept. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and calling it socially inept.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest Stubstad]

Actions speak louder than words Richard, it doesn't matter what Dr. Ketchum is going to talk about. If you state you are going to post something that involved her project prematurely there is no other way to interpret those actions. Either they are malicious or you really are socially inept. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and calling it socially inept.

OK, Jodie, that's accepted. You aren't the first one in this world to call me "socially inept", so maybe you do have a good point there.

I still differ from your statement, however, that the project is "her" (Ketchum's) project. In fact, it started with Paulides, Biscardi, me, Erickson and Java Bob (Schmalzbach), in that chronological order. We went to her; she didn't come to us. We brought her samples and provided her with both funding and a good background in previous work along the DNA lines we have been discussing in this thread. We also showed her a whole lot of circumstantial evidence; much of it still today unreleased.

How this becomes "her" project, only Hank et.al. can figure out. As I said, good luck with that one.

To get back to a more relevant topic, I return to the Zana/Khwit angle. You said you couldn't find the mtDNA sequencing for these tests. It is shown, somewhat cryptically, in the following website:

http://www.isogg.org/ancientdna.htm

Among other things, you will notice that it was the HV1 region of the mitochondrial DNA that was sequenced for BOTH Khwit and Zana, as I recalled. While the researchers couldn't be 100% positive that Zana was really Zana, they did share a 100% mitochondrial match in the HV1 region, which is unlikely especially considering the single polymorphism (compared to the CRS) at pair number 16,189 (T -> C). The researchers were trying to prove or disprove that Zana was actually a pure Neanderthal, and they proved she was NOT.

What they didn't notice however is that her "C" in position 16,189 appears to be shared by all existing Neanderthal sequences. Even more interestingly, most if not all Khoisan also share this particular polymorphism, as does OUR (not only Ketchum's) Sample 3. Most other modern humans do not share this particular polymorphic pair (but rather most of us have the CRS's T in that position). This discussion should also mention that several extant and extinct tribes of American Indians also have a C in position 16,189.

These facts do not mean that Zana was actually an American Indian, a Khoisan, a Neanderthal or a Sasquatch. Merely that she may have been genetically related to one or more of these.

The researchers did not go far enough with their analysis, because they were only interested in one thing: Was Zana a pure remnant Neanderthal? The answer to that was "no", because there were a few other pairs within HV1 that did NOT match any Neanderthal sequence from relics.

I believe there is a very good chance Zana was actually a so-called Almasty and that complete sequencing of both the mito and nuclear genomes could easily have proven that. In fact, since you seem to know a bit about Ketchum's current project, do you know if she is in the process of testing the Zana or Khwit skulls? I do know that she has already tested, or is testing, the Snelgove Lake sample collected by Jeff Meldrum and Curt Nelson -- do you know how these tests are coming out? Of course not specifically, pair-by-pair, but in general?

Thanks, Jodie.

Richard

PS: Jody, I like the fact that you and others have a picture attached to your posts; it makes communication a bit less "distant". I posted a picture of myself on my Profile yesterday, but it doesn't seem to migrate over to the thread itself, here. Can you help me get it into my entries so folks have some idea of what I look like?

Edited October 1, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest]

Well sure- Copy your pic to your files. Click on your username, click my profile. You will see "edit my profile" up in the right corner, click on this. You will see on the left hand side of the screen where your pic is supposed to be a heading called "change my avatar". Click on that and follow the directions. I hit browse so it automatically pulls up my files and then I copy what I want into the space allowed and hit add. Sometimes the pic might be too big and you might have to resize it, I'm not sure how to do that.

I don't know anything about Dr. Ketchum's project. I heard she didn't use any European or Asian samples though. What ever I post I am piecing together from what you and others tell me, for whatever that is worth.

Does the Denisova sample have any relation to Kwhit's profile? I haven't read the link yet but was just curious because of the area of the country Kwhit and Zana were located.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest Forbig]

If your time is being wasted here, I'd say you're the one wasting it, unless somebody here is forcing you to read the arguments.

+ 1 from me

[Guest Stubstad]

Well sure- Copy your pic to your files. Click on your username, click my profile. You will see "edit my profile" up in the right corner, click on this. You will see on the left hand side of the screen where your pic is supposed to be a heading called "change my avatar". Click on that and follow the directions. I hit browse so it automatically pulls up my files and then I copy what I want into the space allowed and hit add. Sometimes the pic might be too big and you might have to resize it, I'm not sure how to do that.

I don't know anything about Dr. Ketchum's project. I heard she didn't use any European or Asian samples though. What ever I post I am piecing together from what you and others tell me, for whatever that is worth.

Does the Denisova sample have any relation to Kwhit's profile? I haven't read the link yet but was just curious because of the area of the country Kwhit and Zana were located.

Thanks for the pleasant response, Jodie, and for your assistance in using the BigFootForums Blog. I'll give the "avatar" clue a try; being the social retard I must be, I didn't think of that one -- the only "avatar" I know is the movie! LOL.

On the mitochondrial side (which is almost all I know about): No, Zana bears little resemblance to either Denisovan, Neanderthal or the Khoisan. Little resemblance but not zero resemblance. For Zana, to know more we need a complete sequence, both mito and nuclear. We have neither; just a "quick and dirty" HV1 that isn't good for much except to say she is NOT 100% this-or-that.

Obviously, she is 100% something, but the researchers didn't explore that question at all. They just assumed she was 100% modern human.

Indeed, all 3 complete sasquatch mtDNA sequences to-date appear to be 100% modern human, especially if one only considers each sample on its own merits and doesn't connect the dots & look for similarities, genetic roots, etc.

Ketchum and I and others had already figured this out when we departed company -- that a thorough NuDNA investigation would be needed to solve the riddle instead of writing it off as an army of modern humans across the entire continent pulling a fast one on all of us. I don't even have enough data to prove with 100% certainty that sasquatch ISN'T a veritable pile of North American (and Russian?) hoaxes and misidentifications. I'm only 97% sure, based on DNA evidence from 4 out of 4 samples, AND connecting the dots without taking the easy way out and writing it all off before the data is in-house.

Richard

PS: I took a look at the above thread and I noticed that a guy or gal called "BigFootnis" got me thinking about WHY we, as researchers just like Ketchum, haven't published a single sequence? This person went on to say that it was a "waste of his/her time" to listen to all this talk about DNA evidence with nothing to back it up. Anyway, that is what got me stared on the actual DNA sequence information we all deserve (and some of us have paid for), not Ketchum's talk today or tomorrow somewhere in Oklahoma. It never even occurred to me that her talk has anything to do with the subject of RELEASING DNA sequencing information, and that's the truth of the matter. Maybe on the other hand BigFootnis was "trolling" and, as usual, I didn't bite since it didn't occur to me he/she was doing so.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest]

Don't worry about it Richard, I heard Dr. Ketchum was a no show anyway so who knows what she was going to talk about. I figured she would just talk about what had been done so far and not get into the nitty gritty of it, anyway. Be glad you didn't take the bait. The plot, if it ever existed, was foiled.

I looked at that site after I posted, it just reiterated what you said already but not in as much detail as far as how it was related to the rest. Why don't you post an article on your website about this?

So are you going to check into getting Zana and son's DNA sequenced since you are doing your own thing now? Or are you going to limit your study to North America alone? I'll ask these two questions and then let it get back to Erickson's project.

[Guest Stubstad]

Don't worry about it Richard, I heard Dr. Ketchum was a no show anyway so who knows what she was going to talk about. I figured she would just talk about what had been done so far and not get into the nitty gritty of it, anyway. Be glad you didn't take the bait. The plot, if it ever existed, was foiled.

I looked at that site after I posted, it just reiterated what you said already but not in as much detail as far as how it was related to the rest. Why don't you post an article on your website about this?

So are you going to check into getting Zana and son's DNA sequenced since you are doing your own thing now? Or are you going to limit your study to North America alone? I'll ask these two questions and then let it get back to Erickson's project.

Well, in fact as it turns out that very question IS related to the Erickson project.

Erickson, maybe a year or more ago, made a down payment on the Khwit skull, and/or maybe the Zana skull (or both). He made the deal with the Russians, the ones we have all heard of.

As of the last I heard (a month or two ago), the Russians hadn't delivered anything at all. They wanted to give Adrian his deposit back, but Adrian said "no", he wanted the skull(s) because that was the contractual deal in any event.

As of now, my best educated guess is that the Russians have taken the information I have posted, and others have posted or published, and are running their own "internal" tests in Moscow.

If Adrian had these skulls, they would have been included in our parallel study. Not because we really want to expand beyond North America, but simply because it appears that Zana was genetically related to our sasquatch -- assuming both exist.

As usual, Adrian gets the short end of the stick.

Richard