The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

What a sad joke this has turned in to...

[Guest]

I've now seen a few references asserting Ketchum claims knowledge/data that would undo the theory of evolution. Does anybody have links or more info about that?

In one of her interviews, Ketchum claimed that her paper would disprove "Darwin's theory of evolution." I have no idea if she is speaking about Darwin specifically or evolution in general, though.

[Guest]

^

Not sure how one could speak about "Darwin's theory of evoution" without referencing Darwin specifically or evolutionary theory in general?

One could think that the "angel dna" references could -hypothetically mind you, there is no evidence such a term was ever used- tie in to such a proposition. Nor is there evidence this "angel dna" referred to Nephilim, the only source on record for that is the late Stubstad, so you couldn't draw any references that those would still be what Ketchum claims that she thinks asserts believes the paper to show. Somehow, without publishing the data.

Edited March 17, 2013 by NukaCola

[Guest]

I thought the specific reference was from one of her Coast-to-Coast interviews in which she asserted that Sasquatch was "not Darwinian" in origin. (I did not hear this - just saw it referenced by folks who listened to the show.)

[Guest]

Well, I will scientifically evaluate the data. I think MK got some things seriously wrong, but I am still hopeful that somewhere in the midst of the confusion is something that points to BF. I just hope it will be more substantial than the data that she posted in the paper. I hope it is the complete mtDNA sequences, the sequences form the non-Illumina sequencing, and the other contigs she comments on in the manuscript - ie ALL sequencing done in this paper. I don't expect there to be the raw data though...

Thanks ridge, I think more people in the science community should approach this in the same manner in witch you are speaking, there can be a misinterpretation of the data, but it doesn't mean everything is incorrect, by taking a cynical position, something very important could be overlooked that could lead to a major discovery.

[Guest]

I thought the specific reference was from one of her Coast-to-Coast interviews in which she asserted that Sasquatch was "not Darwinian" in origin. (I did not hear this - just saw it referenced by folks who listened to the show.)

That may be accurate; I only listened to it once, so I may have misremembered her exact words. Regardless, she did not come off as a supporter of evolution, whatever her phrasing. It was almost like she was blowing a creationist dog whistle.

[Guest TwilightZone]

You see, this is what I like about Melba. Not only is she willing to take on the Bigfoot Community, but the Fashion Industry as well..

Hey, do you think the back of the t-shirt will have the raw data printed on it????

I bet Melba's data could fit on the tag. The other side would have the garment care: wash in murky water, dry with plenty of hot air.

[HOLDMYBEER]

^

Not sure how one could speak about "Darwin's theory of evoution" without referencing Darwin specifically or evolutionary theory in general?

One could think that the "angel dna" references could -hypothetically mind you, there is no evidence such a term was ever used- tie in to such a proposition. Nor is there evidence this "angel dna" referred to Nephilim, the only source on record for that is the late Stubstad, so you couldn't draw any references that those would still be what Ketchum claims that she thinks asserts believes the paper to show. Somehow, without publishing the data.

Not that ketchum has mentioned it, but others have proposed a significant change from convention. THE UPRIGHT APE, A New Origin of the Species by Dr. Aaron G. Filler, 2007, New Page Books.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Bringing it back on topic to the study.....Paulides had this to say on his site recently:

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootblog.html

There have been many comments about The Bigfoot DNA study Co-authored by Dr. Ketchum. Myself and our other researchers know exactly what is in the study, how it was constructed, who did the testing and the relevant results. 99% of the comments from the outside world are made to blind others of the study results. These individuals have no idea what the true results contained, or they did and are hoping that the public will believe their attempt at skewing the paper by lying, it’s a horrific scenario that continues to take place. Remember, Dr. Ketchum is listed as the primary author but in reality is only a co-author as many other PhD’s participated in writing and structuring the white paper. I was fortunate to be privy to some conversations from various journals that had viewed the paper. I can confirm with 100% certainty, the paper was refused by some of the biggest journals in the world and THEY NEVER read it. How do we know they didn’t read it? The answers to the questions they posed, and thus the reason for refusal were inside the paper and easily, easily found. In fact, in many of the instances our authors notified the journal of the exact location of the answers and were ignored.

Dr. Ketchum did something and went somewhere where all others had failed, or refused to try. We’ve seen comments on various sites about the study and its completely obvious that few have read it. It seems that society is not ready to accept the results and journals will never give the credit to a group outside academia, thus an early refusal of the white paper was the result. I do wish Dr. Sykes good luck on his research, as it will support our findings.

[Guest Silent Sam]

Remember, Dr. Ketchum is listed as the primary author but in reality is only a co-author as many other PhD’s participated in writing and structuring the white paper. I was fortunate to be privy to some conversations from various journals that had viewed the paper. I can confirm with 100% certainty, the paper was refused by some of the biggest journals in the world and THEY NEVER read it. How do we know they didn’t read it? The answers to the questions they posed, and thus the reason for refusal were inside the paper and easily, easily found. In fact, in many of the instances our authors notified the journal of the exact location of the answers and were ignored.

And that should all be very easy to document right?

[Guest]

I do wish Dr. Sykes good luck on his research, as it will support our findings.

So you are a co-author I presume? You are clearly indicating some involvement in the generation of the data. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Sorry, you may have been quoting the NABs article.

Edited March 17, 2013 by ridgerunner

[HOLDMYBEER]

This is the first I have seen the paper referred to as a 'white paper' rather than a peer-reviewed paper. Have we turned a corner?

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

So you are a co-author I presume? You are clearly indicating some involvement in the generation of the data. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Sorry, you may have been quoting the NABs article.

No problem. I was quoting the relevant parts of the article. Sorry if there was any confusion from how I posted it.

[Guest]

I'll let others note the nuances/changes in Paulides blog.

but, I want to ask this again and hoping someone like RR can answer:

1. Since Neanderthal and Densiova markers show up only in the nDNA and the 1million human mtDNA on file in Genbank do not show any evidence of Nenderthal or Denisova isn't it possible that MK did get the easier mtDNA testing right, that the samples showing 14 or so human mtDNA haplotypes are indeed representing BFs analougous to these other relict hominids?

I ask b/c it seems the mtDNA testing is considered easier, with a protocol in place longer...and that NextGen is prone to error on many fronts, from amplification, to reassembly, to interpretation? It seems to me she may have the mtDNA essentially correct...and fell down on the nDNA portion and therefore the ultimate conclusion of the paper...?

If that is the case and she did finally upload to GenBank..... well, I don't know what to ask, but hoping you RR or someone who can would take this idea and expand....?

i am not proud of Mk's behavior, or what I think I know of it, based on what I read and what has transpired. But, I am willing to consider any portion of that work that might be valid and might help lead us to a confident conclusion about who/what BFs are.

Am I just too hopeful?

I don't think so...I do think it makes sense BFs are in the genus Homo....and since we only have three and one, respectively, mtDNA of Neanderthal and Denisova...well we just don't have a big group except for H. sapiens on file....

Edited March 17, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest]

I got a private answer for the above and it does make sense: Stubstad's assertion of only two, and older, types of mtDNA seems more interesting, but the 14 types MK presents, so many more modern types as well as so diverse, seem to defy what one would expect..some intuition that BFs separated from us much earlier..and that diversity would not be present...? That contamination is more likely. Ok, makes sense.

But, I did read recently that our DNA is considered less diverse than most apes (one exception..don't recall which..maybe chimps..?...i will look for the reference). It did surprise me that our genome is considered less diverse, given how apparently not diverse genotypes gives rise to all our seemingly really different phenotypes. .. our variability in size, skull shape, and so on does seem more than many other primates.. I am confused! ....

The argument of too much variability or too modern mDNA in BFs would not necessarily follow, although it does seem stronger.... So, I guess the mtDNA of the three relict genomes must be of the oldest haplotypes...and these 14 MK haplotypes point to contamination at the get go..which would also account for the divergence of the SK sample results...oh well. I keep trying

Edited March 17, 2013 by apehuman