The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

Fair enough. And what do you think her paper proves?

[Guest thermalman]

@ PNWS

"She is a doctor, apparently, and should know better than to use terms like 'Angel DNA', or claim to have mind-spoken to BF's. Is that not weird? Does that have no bearing on her character, in your opinions?"

I don't believe Dr. Ketchum was the one who coined the term "Angel DNA". I first read about the term in a media blog some months ago, and if memory serves me correct, it was stated by numerous people that the blogger came up with the term.

The mind speaking is a little hard to swallow. It doesn't matter who stated that, it does border on weird.

I wish her papers would prove more than what they do currently. It seems were on the verge of something big, but right now it's nothing, unfortunately.

Edited March 27, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest maelsquatch]

What is then required, in a DNA analysis, to constitute the revelation of a "novel/new" DNA species in the DNA bank?

I don't think a new species is going to be identified by DNA alone except in rare cases where closely related species are distinguished from one another by small differences in the DNA. The Denisovan would be a good example of this occurring. And scientists are reluctant to assign a species name to the Denisovans because nothing is known about their anatomy (the DNA comes from only 2 small bones).

In Dr. Ketchum's case, the DNA is so different from anything in Genbank that a type specimen will probably be required. And that opens up a whole 'nother can o' worms.

[Guest thermalman]

@ ms

What type of sequencing needs to take place to show a new/novel speciman? I'm thinking of current discoveries that currently happen. What is in the DNA makeup to distinquish them from existing relatives in the same genus or family, and how could it be applied to Dr. Ketchum's findings?

[southernyahoo]

SY, Thermalman, Zig, SC, and others who support Ketchum. Does Ketchums paper, in your opinions, prove existence of Sasquatch? Did she put any of the nuDNA sequence on the paper? I'm curious as to what you tell people now, regarding proof of BF? Do you say, "Yes, it has been proven, and here's the paper to prove my claims!" Do you guys cite things that have been stated by her that haven't been put in the paper?

Could I, for instance, go up to my agency director, and say,"Hey, boss, Bigfoot is finally proven to exist! Here's the paper that proves it!" Could I tell my brother, a Cornell educated doctor, "Hey, bro, I told you! Bigfoot's real! Here's the peer-reviewed paper that proves it!" Would it be a good idea to tell my other brother, who is a detective, and was previously a Fish&Wildlife officer, "Hey....If you guys need any DNA work done for a case, I know of a great forensics lab in Texas that you guys should use. And, btw, they proved the existence of Bigfoot recently. Take a copy of the paper, and show it to everybody in the office."

Even though I know BF's exist, I'd personally feel idiotic standing there looking an educated/reasonable person in the eye, and telling them BF is real based on this paper. I guess that's my own personal feeling, but is there evidence of existence somewhere in the pages of the study? I can't take her seriously enough to believe that there is. It has nothing to do with group-think, or the Tribalism, even though I'm a registered NA. I do, however, believe the people who claim they are qualified to speak about DNA on this message board about the lack of evidence, and it is part of my logic behind why I don't think she is being truthful. So, yeah, I suffer from confirmation bias, I suppose. The other part of why I think she isn't being truthful has to do with what she's put out on social media, her method of delivering the paper, who she confides in to speak for her/represent her, and her overall track record in regards to her business practices, all of which, I use my own gut feelings to come up with my own conclusions about her, and they are independent of anybody else's thoughts/claims. It sure doesn't feel like she's proven anything, though, and it seems that she is trimming wallets of $30 a pop for a sci-fi paper that makes a myriad of claims that aren't backed up by hard science.

She is a doctor, apparently, and should know better than to use terms like 'Angel DNA', or claim to have mind-spoken to BF's. Is that not weird? Does that have no bearing on her character, in your opinions?

I can say that the paper is not what I had envisioned, nothing ever is I guess, but to be blunt, no I don't hold this up as proof. I was envisoning a lot more detailed description and microscopy of the samples plus data on all that provided any DNA. I expected more involvement from coauthors in analysis, though can live with straight reporting of what they did and found. Apparently they would only report to Ketchum since she was their client.

I've been supportive of any scientific involvement by any person so qualified to test and report on biological samples prospectivly from bigfoot, though I really can't stand it when we get a "human" result from a creature that makes "humanlike" footprints and the towel gets thrown in immediately.

I favor the idea of a comprehensive study on a large group of samples because it can form a cogency of evidence that could be missed testing a single sample at a time and is easier to establish proof of a breeding population. Also, the little details might grab an examiners attention when seen often enough that a random examiner might overlook.

I'm glad her paper or report is out, her hypothesis is out, just wish there was clear Y chromosome data that clinched it.

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

Call this thread what you want - but I have learned a lot from those who are posting (and have the necessary credentials).

I have not seen anyone with verifiable credentials post in here. Who would you be referring to?

She is a big girl and can make her own decision. But lets not forget - this community was good enough when she needed samples.

Did you submit a sample, or are you a critic without a sample?

[Guest]

Well, hopefully she can right the ship and share all of her data, if there is pro-BF data in there, to Sykes, and it could be presented properly. I'll be completely honest...My perception of the personal side of her affects how I feel about the professional side of her, and definitely skews my objectivity towards anything she attaches her name to. Hopefully something can be salvaged from this. I still personally feel she is running some sort of _____, but hopefully Melba proves everyone wrong. I know I'm not above apologizing for being wrong and stating things that were inaccurate, if she proves her claims, but the evidence just isn't pointing that way for me.

And when I say Ketchum camp, I'm referring to the actual group of people working on the study internally, and who are providing all of the information. I don't encompass all pro-Melba's into that group, just in case people think I'm talking about submitters, supporters, etc.

[Guest]

I will do you one better J Sasq Doe:

Ridgerunner gave his credentials. I even stated them in the article. He's a molecular biologist with 30 years experience in functional genetics. If it all comes down to credentials, some could argue Dr. Ketchum isn't qualified to speak on the results, since her experience is even less. But no one's been saying that. This about the discussion about those results. There are people here qualified to understand and explain it. And if they question the science, they need to show why they question it. And I think they've done a good job putting it in layman terms.

njjohn posted that just a page back. I hope that helps. That's just one person who posts here.

Oh, and no I am not a submitter - I am just an interested bigfooter - with the right to question things I am being told. Which I would encourage everyone to do, and always have.

But thanks for asking

Question - do you have some connection to the study? Are you a submitter? One of the scientists that tested samples?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Melissa

[Guest thermalman]

Well, hopefully she can right the ship and share all of her data, if there is pro-BF data in there, to Sykes, and it could be presented properly. I'll be completely honest...My perception of the personal side of her affects how I feel about the professional side of her, and definitely skews my objectivity towards anything she attaches her name to. Hopefully something can be salvaged from this. I still personally feel she is running some sort of _____, but hopefully Melba proves everyone wrong. I know I'm not above apologizing for being wrong and stating things that were inaccurate, if she proves her claims, but the evidence just isn't pointing that way for me.

And when I say Ketchum camp, I'm referring to the actual group of people working on the study internally, and who are providing all of the information. I don't encompass all pro-Melba's into that group, just in case people think I'm talking about submitters, supporters, etc.

I truely believe the data is GOOD. The whole circus of presentation and all, is what kills me. But, she is human and humans make mistakes.

[Guest Silent Sam]

I truely believe the data is GOOD.

I think there might have been some legitimate data presented for testing, but because of errors, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and little or no chain of custody I have my own personal doubts about any of it being salvageable.

The whole circus of presentation and all, is what kills me. But, she is human and humans make mistakes.

Humans do make mistakes and that's fair. Unfortunately Ketchum's modus operandi has been to make a mistake and then attempt to cover it, only to make another mistake in the process, rather than just owning the mistake and attempting to correct it. A lot of patience and good faith has been burned up because of this.

[Guest]

Bigfoot Lunch Club just posted a letter from Anthony Ciani, a condensed material physicist, in defense of Dr. Ketchum's paper. The post is called "Two clear possibilities for Bigfoot: Hybrid or Mutant." It's mostly a rehash of things already discussed ad nauseum - conspiracies and bias forcing Ketchum to self-publish - but Ciani contradicts Ketchum's statements and the paper in some key areas. He also doesn't seem to think much of her lemur theory.

Some of the highlights:

The most controversial part of the paper is Ketchum's speculation (emphasis) that bigfoots are a cross between human females and some unknown hominid. There is little data to identify the genesis of the bigfoot race, and Ketchum was originally loathe to make any speculation about it. The speculation was a response to a reviewer, who suggested that including an origin for the species would make the paper publishable. As Kokjohn notes, there are problems with the hybrid conjecture. Unfortunately, Dr. Ketchum can be far too stubborn for her own good, and she grew attached to the idea of a hybrid, so she left it in the paper, rather than remove it after the paper was rejected. She has even gone so far as to misread hear own phylogenetic tree, and has been talking about some possibility that bigfoots are a cross between giant lemurs and humans. Ketchum is not a geneticist or evolutionary biologist; she is a forensic scientist.

-snip-

For the nuDNA sequencing, Ketchum looked ONLY at chromosome 11. The sequencing technique used a universal primer and provided the entire, continuous sequence along the chromosome (junk and genes, straight down the string). What Ketchum (well, technically a geneticist collaborator) found was a mixture of easily identifiable human genes, slightly mutated human genes and unknown sequences, all on the same chromosome. The genes that are identifiable as H. sapiens sapiens do not show up at exactly their proper loci, and the junk sequences between them are poorly matched, but it is a hominid chromosome 11. I am uncertain where Kokjohn got the idea that Ketchum ever said the sequences have no homology, because she wrote, "all three samples showed homology to human chromosome 11." Most of the genes are there, but many of them are just slightly different, and a few are very different (assuming they are genes and not junk).

This seems to contradict several aspects of Ketchum's paper, particularly where she discusses finding novel sequences in amel Y.

[Guest]

Ok, another non-geneticist, non-biologist commenting on the MK paper. While not the totally supportive, does attempt to support the paper. Seems to be focusing on the rejection being due to the hybrid theory. Oddly, I don't think this is a bad theory, and could explain the human-like mt DNA (although without the full sequence I am dubious, as well as the claim that 111 of 111 all tested positive for cytochrome b ). As someone mentioned a bit earlier, BF does have a human like physique and has human-like footprints. I don't think science would have any problem with this. BUT for a hybrid to happen, the two parental lines would need to be very similar. I have stated this several times in the past. The nuDNA is not similar enough to Homo sapiens sapiens to allow for hybridization. And they are not of similar size. And again they are not even very similar between the three nuDNA sequences provided.

Again, Anthony Ciani is mis-interpreting MKs paper.

"The sequencing technique used a universal primer and provided the entire, continuous sequence along the chromosome (junk and genes, straight down the string). What Ketchum (well, technically a geneticist collaborator) found was a mixture of easily identifiable human genes, slightly mutated human genes and unknown sequences, all on the same chromosome. The genes that are identifiable as H. sapiens sapiens do not show up at exactly their proper loci, and the junk sequences between them are poorly matched, but it is a hominid chromosome 11. I am uncertain where Kokjohn got the idea that Ketchum ever said the sequences have no homology, because she wrote, "all three samples showed homology to human chromosome 11." Most of the genes are there, but many of them are just slightly different, and a few are very different (assuming they are genes and not junk)."

First, the sequencing technique does not provide the entire, continuous sequence. They provide millions of random short reads that NEED TO BE ASSEMBLED. They found nothing on any chromosome - that information is not obtained form the method used. They CHOSE sequences related to chromosome 11. They had no idea WHERE the samples belonged - they ATTEMPTED to put them in the appropriate position relevant to CH11 (and got that pretty correct actually). It is not a hominid chromosome 11 but a poorly assembled sequence, made to look like a hss CH11, BECAUSE THEY USED THE HUMAN CH11 AS A TEMPLATE FOR THE ASSEMBLY. And the sample have little homology to the human ch11 - over the length of their contig. Yes, snipets of 100-150bp do have homology to human but the majority does not. Some useful info may be still present in the raw sequence, but will only be found with the correct assumptions and with truly qualified bioinformaticians.

Sunflower, the magnitude of this discover has not been overlooked. Quite the contrary. True identification and verification of BF would be a major scientific discovery. But the MK paper does not verify the claims stated in the paper.

I honestly am embarrassed by this manuscript. I had hoped to be able to show it to colleagues and friends as proof of BF, but I have not even mentioned it has been "published". I have had nothing to do with it, and have been steadfastly critically evaluating its claims, yet don't even want to be professionally associated with it in the capacity of showing how bad it is.

Is there anything useful to be found in the paper - I don't think there is much. The real sequences of the mtDNA, real sequences of the nuDNA genes they obtained from conventional methods, the raw data of the illumina sequencing MAY have some data. But as of now, this paper is a bust. The scientific community has rejected it, any qualified scientist that we have heard from has rejected it. Even many of the co-authors are not openly supporting it.

Time to move on? Yes, but unfortunately incorrect statements keep on being made in reference to this paper, requiring continuing correction if the outside world is ever going to take the subject of BF as something other than folklore, misidentification, or outright lunacy. We need to be our own most voracious critics.

Edited March 28, 2013 by ridgerunner

[Guest]

Ah, RR...What would us laymen do without you?!

[southernyahoo]

I honestly am embarrassed by this manuscript. I had hoped to be able to show it to colleagues and friends as proof of BF, but I have not even mentioned it has been "published". I have had nothing to do with it, and have been steadfastly critically evaluating its claims, yet don't even want to be professionally associated with it in the capacity of showing how bad it is.

Is there anything useful to be found in the paper - I don't think there is much. The real sequences of the mtDNA, real sequences of the nuDNA genes they obtained from conventional methods, the raw data of the illumina sequencing MAY have some data. But as of now, this paper is a bust. The scientific community has rejected it, any qualified scientist that we have heard from has rejected it. Even many of the co-authors are not openly supporting it.

Time to move on? Yes, but unfortunately incorrect statements keep on being made in reference to this paper, requiring continuing correction if the outside world is ever going to take the subject of BF as something other than folklore, misidentification, or outright lunacy. We need to be our own most voracious critics.

I don't think all is lost here RR, Ketchum may not have hit the home run but to be honest, if she was left to decifer all the data herself, then it was too much for one person to accomplish themselves anyways, especially while trying to earn her living running a lab with other clients. I've held back from attempting to repeat her results from my sample because I wanted initial results from her to compare to and wanted to see what panned out from review of the data. I will still test my sample further, and if it were simply from an ordinary human there won't be any issue getting nuclear identity, and if from a known animal then a simple universal mtDNA primer will find the sole donor. It will be redemption for her or the sample will get torched.

[Drew]

I have seen some of the rejection letters, and the singular grounds of rejection was that the samples must have been contaminated. The paper grew to a considerable size, just to address contamination, and yet many of the reviewers still ignored those sections.

Ketchum did a lot of work to address contamination, including testing the submitters, people at her lab, and people at the other labs. Also, even if there was contamination, the sequencing would have produced a result for each contributor. If the sample was contaminated by two handlers, then there would have been three sequences. Because of the careful in-lab handling and preparation, no sample ever showed more than one genetic contributor. So either bigfoots do not have mtDNA, and all of the mtDNA hits came from a single contaminator on each sample (which is so unlikely that it is ridiculous), or none of the samples were contaminated. Also, the nuDNA showed a unique sequence. Where would the contamination have come from to produce that? You would have us believe that three samples were contaminated by three different people with non-human nuDNA? That is a major discovery right there.

You think a human would have non-human nuDNA?

Really?

What if the submitter were Bulletmaker? Would you question the results?