The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest thermalman]

Info on a rumoured NG documentary about MK's findings and the Erickson Project, at the TRJ.

http://riverjournal.com/vivvo/features/other_worlds/2632-surrealist_matildadna_forest_032013.html

"Editors Note: As this issue of TRJ goes to press, a number of biologists have voiced concerns that Dr. Ketchum’s methodology has been flawed and that her findings of an unknown hominid DNA sequence may, in fact, be that of a panda/dog mixture, i.e, contaminated and worthless. Further, the reported “marked resemblance†in the Erickson film footage to a “Wookie costume†may be just that, someone in a Wookie costume. More on all that next month."

An interesting observation by the author/ editor, about other scientists noting that MK's novel samples might very well be a panda/dog mix? I hope the MK opposition here are just as zealous in their confrontational opinions towards those who are now claiming the new hypothesis put forth in an attempt to discredit MK!

*rolling eyes* I personally doubt it though.

Edited April 3, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest Silent Sam]

@ SS "I can't speak for anyone else and I won't attempt to."

Really? You don't seem to shy about questioning and picking apart MK and her chain of custody probabilities? Hypocritical answer on your part, and your posts prove it.

In the words of Inigo Montoya "I do not think it means what you think it means". You asked me in your previous post...

Could you please tell us why the chain of custody was never mentioned as an issue or concern with Bart's and Tyler's samples, and only with Melba's? We are listening with keen ears. Apples to apples is only fair.

I don't know why that question wasn't asked in that thread. I haven't participated in it, hence my "I can't speak for anyone else". Maybe it was. I don't know. I did however say that if they made the same claim as Melba, that they should be held to the same standard. Apples to apples.

@ SS "I was satisfied with the response I received and did not feel it warranted further correspondence."

The response you received, was it directly from Family Tree, or via the "grapevine"?

I've provided direct quotes from Family Tree on more than one occasion, but to answer your question again yes that response came directly from Family Tree.

Ridiculous claim! MK was testing over a hundred samples, from who knows how many different people?

Where the samples came from is totally irrelevant! A sample, is just that,.....a sample!

BTW, what were the results of the tested samples from your suggested hoaxers above?

You asked if I had proof that Janice Carter had submitted samples to Ketchum. Your exact words were..

Do you have proof of what you claim?

I provided that proof, along with proof of Mary Green submitting multiple samples since another user brought it up. As far as results they are included in Ketchum's final study which means they were not ruled out or discarded, but none of Carter's or Green's samples were subjected to nuDNA sequencing. This would mean they all tested positive for modern human DNA. That said if known hoaxers participating in the study doesn't bother you then that's certainly your prerogative and you are welcome to it.

The Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman, would have called it "Cargo Cult Science."

Happy belated John Frum Day to you!

[Martin]

njjohn,

I don't think your being deceptive.

This thread has grown beyond bizarre.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Martin

[Guest]

I think I put your post over the edge to "popular" GenesRUS with my plus. Thank you for not mincing words, again.

[Guest]

In fact, I'll help you:

Tom: helixtom@wowway.com

Andreas: holzen@tamu.edu

David: (214) 920-5952

Douglas: (817) 293-4304

Pat: (318) 227-2889

Aliece: (817) 553-6565

Fan: Fan.Zhang@unthsc.edu

Sarah, Ray and Ryan appear to be former employees of DNA Diagnostics and are virtually impossible to locate online unless you pay for online people-finder services. DNA Diagnostics has employed no one since Dr. Ketchum closed the lab last year.

So in your world, it's reasonable for me to track down hearsay from a biased source? Yet you take the arguments of people who agree with you at their word? I don't get it... Do we just believe what is posted as long as it agrees with our stance and only track it down only when we don't agree with it? Or do we check everything? This is extremely confusing- I thought we just look at the source of information to make our decisions on it's validity? Isn't that what this whole thread is based on? When did we start verifying everything? Or is it only the stuff from JREF?...

what? these are the authors of the paper. How would that be hearsay? This is not stuff from JREF, these are the original authors! many people (unlike you) have went to the trouble of actually contacting them and speaking with them. The information they post here, they got it right from the "horses mouth" (or authors mouths).

The reason we "check everything" in this case is because so much of what has been stated in the paper, and on MK's FB page etc has been demonstrably wrong! so once you start seeing a long list of errors, mistatements, and half truths, well that subjects you to closer scrutiny!

Had the papers conclusions matched up to the data, we would be celebrating MK day! Had the data been made available, well then we would know for sure by now right!

[Guest njjohn]

Info on a rumoured NG documentary about MK's findings and the Erickson Project, at the TRJ.

http://riverjournal....est_032013.html

"Editors Note: As this issue of TRJ goes to press, a number of biologists have voiced concerns that Dr. Ketchum’s methodology has been flawed and that her findings of an unknown hominid DNA sequence may, in fact, be that of a panda/dog mixture, i.e, contaminated and worthless. Further, the reported “marked resemblance†in the Erickson film footage to a “Wookie costume†may be just that, someone in a Wookie costume. More on all that next month."

An interesting observation by the author/ editor, about other scientists noting that MK's novel samples might very well be a panda/dog mix? I hope the MK opposition here are just as zealous in their confrontational opinions towards those who are now claiming the new hypothesis put forth in an attempt to discredit MK!

*rolling eyes* I personally doubt it though.

Panda shows up because there are many Panda genomes in Genbank, while there have been very few genomes entered of American species. This isn't new information. Same with the dog DNA. One of the genomes did get results that showed high amounts of dog.

They aren't claiming a dog/panda hybrid, but rather dog and bear DNA with human contamination. This isn't the first time I've heard this from sources. And this is science, not discrediting.... She put forth a hypothesis...now others will look at the data and put forth their own. When you put forth a hypothesis, it will be tested.

[TimB]

In fact, I'll help you:

Tom: helixtom@wowway.com

Andreas: holzen@tamu.edu

David: (214) 920-5952

Douglas: (817) 293-4304

Pat: (318) 227-2889

Aliece: (817) 553-6565

Fan: Fan.Zhang@unthsc.edu

Sarah, Ray and Ryan appear to be former employees of DNA Diagnostics and are virtually impossible to locate online unless you pay for online people-finder services. DNA Diagnostics has employed no one since Dr. Ketchum closed the lab last year.

So in your world, it's reasonable for me to track down hearsay from a biased source? Yet you take the arguments of people who agree with you at their word? I don't get it... Do we just believe what is posted as long as it agrees with our stance and only track it down only when we don't agree with it? Or do we check everything? This is extremely confusing- I thought we just look at the source of information to make our decisions on it's validity? Isn't that what this whole thread is based on? When did we start verifying everything? Or is it only the stuff from JREF?...

what? these are the authors of the paper. How would that be hearsay? This is not stuff from JREF, these are the original authors! many people (unlike you) have went to the trouble of actually contacting them and speaking with them. The information they post here, they got it right from the "horses mouth" (or authors mouths).

The reason we "check everything" in this case is because so much of what has been stated in the paper, and on MK's FB page etc has been demonstrably wrong! so once you start seeing a long list of errors, mistatements, and half truths, well that subjects you to closer scrutiny!

Had the papers conclusions matched up to the data, we would be celebrating MK day! Had the data been made available, well then we would know for sure by now right!

So you are saying you were unaware of the discussion on the JREF and just independently chose to follow up on those two contributors, then report that on the JREF these two contributors are reported to have not participated in the report? Through your own original post that I responded to, you have said that it was reported on JREF that those two contributors didn't have any thing to do with Dr. Ketchum's report. My response was that I don't value hearsay from that very biased source. All the rest is just spin. If you are going to report hearsay as fact, make sure you are clear about that. Otherwise there will be news releases that state that Bigfoot is a panda/dog hybrid...

[southernyahoo]

MK publishes a snippet of the data she claims she has (I don't think she has more data). She refuses to release the complete data set (because it probably doesn't exist).

I cannot comment on anything else. Our lab simply analysed DNA samples that were sent to us. There was no chain of custody for any of the samples, so I cannot verify any information regarding their origin, how they were obtained or how they were processed before we received them.

Just want to make a quick point here using the quote from Family Tree. They did paid for contracted work on mtDNA from the samples. They analysed the DNA (this requires data) and reported back to Dr. Ketchum. They had and or still have that data, it did exist, or would you say Family Tree is lying Genes? There would be no grounds to withold the data from Ketchum.

Also, since Family Tree would have signed for receipt of the samples, they completed the chain of custody. They didn't need the chain of custody, Dr. Ketchum did, and would probably have received a copy of the delivery confirmation.

[Guest]

I just realized something while responding to a PM from another forum member. As I recall from my own analysis of MK's contigs and analysis done by Ridgerunner and others, the contigs contain human, bear and "unknown" regions. If I remember correctly, the "unknown" regions match NOTHING in GenBank. That suggests that the "unknown" genes are ALL non-coding sequences.

That means that all of the DNA from the male pre-sasquatch hominid that mated with a human female 15K years ago fails to encode a single functional gene! That's crazy!

It would be interesting to determine whether any of the human and bear homologous regions contain complete or partial coding regions. If not, MK's contigs are essentially 250k bases of non-functional DNA.

Any thoughts, Ridge?

[Guest Tyler H]

Wow - haven't had time for this forum for a while now... I thought it would have died. I TRULY cannot believe that people are still arguing in favor of MK. Genes - your logic is inescapable. Thanks again. Two fantastic posts, but I could only plus one of them.

TMan... what can I say? logic is to you, as bullets are to Superman. You are impervious.

Re: "thermalman, on 02 April 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Could you please tell us why the chain of custody was never mentioned as an issue or concern with Bart's and Tyler's samples, and only with Melba's? We are listening with keen ears. Apples to apples is only fair."

Or chain of custody WAS questioned by the scientists doing the analysis that I commissioned. But once our hopes and 'claims' of it being something novel evaporated, chain of custody became somewhat of a moot point. We claim nothing extraordinary about the sample, and as such, require no extraordinary proof. Most rational humans do not go "Really? you expect us to believe that you have bear tissue, with human contamination? IMPOSSIBLE!!! You must prove how you could possibly get these fantastic results - this is completely unbelievable. Prove how this could possibly NOT be an exceedingly rare unidentified primate!"

I'm not sure what provenance or chain of custody type of situations could help you here?

We have matching pictures to Melba's samples. The only thing that could settle this is if Melba provides someone with her tissue samples, so that they can be objectively compared with the samples I have left from Justin. But she won't do that. EVERYONE else that can contribute is on board to do so... but she won't. Does that not tell you anything?

[Guest]

Ok.... well I believe I know what is going on...with respect to the nuDNA. I deconvolved some of MKs data, taking the first 10 or so homologous regions from each of the contigs, using human ch11 as a reference. I then took these 10 regions (~100bp each) and individually blasted each with discontinuous megablast. From this I am calling the ids as follows:

sample 26 - Bear (with some human contamination)

sample 31 - Human (with the possibility of being BF)

sample 140 - Canine (with some human contamination)

This is exclusively from the data in the manuscript. The breakdown is

for #26, 6 of 10 sequences had highest % identity with Ailuropoda melanoleuca (97-100% identity) (3 of 10 human, 1 of 10 Ovis)

for #31, 10 of 10 sequences had highest % identity with Homo sapiens

for #140, 6 or 10 sequences had highest % identity with Canis lupus (98-100% identity), (4 of 10 human)

As for what the unknown is in these contigs (~15 to 30% of total sequence), I still don't know.

And the contigs still only contain about 2% of the data they should if they were meant to represent a whole chromosome. But from what it there, once you sort out the good from the bad, the results are quite clear to me.

[Guest Tyler H]

The below info can be found at. http://bf-field-jour...-study-ans.html

The critics are also calling into question the submitters and their samples. I KNOW I handled my samples correctly, following EXTREMELY strict protocols to avoid contamination. I have documented this in more than one video. The DNA Study also went to great lengths to make sure to avoid contamination. Serveral of the submitters hold Doctorates, below is the list: Dr. J. Robert Alley, Dr. Igor Burtsev, Dr. Angelo Capparella, Dr. Henner Fahrenbach Dr. Al Guinn, and Dr. Samuel “Webb†Sentell. I would think these gentlemen would know how to correctly handle DNA samples. Not to mention well respected researchers to include Derek Randles. So the assertion is we all mishandled our samples, I do not think so!

The study had great detail on how the samples were handled to avoid contamination. The study has a complete subsection on the handling of the samples to avoid contamination: Prevention of DNA Contamination by Forensic Methodologies. Also remember many of the samples were not hair but blood, saliva, and a piece of flesh. The flesh was "cored" and a sample taken from the center of the flesh. This would make it completely sterile. The only way this could be contaminated is by processors inside the study or one of the University facilities mentioned above.

It is clear to me that the critics are not reading the paper or worse reading the paper and ignoring the documentation because of a personal bias. When the independent review is complete we will have our answers, until then I say again, and for the last time READ THE PAPER, provide POINT by POINT, DOCUMENTED, AND REFERENCED criticism.

Lets take a look at a just a few of the experts that are on the DNA Study team:

...

Dr. Ketchum used the following for hire laboratories in a BLIND STUDY of the DNA:

"The following laboratories provided sequencing and analysis of samples in the study on a work for hire basis and were not initially told the origin of the samples being tested until after the samples were tested:"

This study is complicated and it will take days or even weeks to read and absorb. I do not see how the critics have even had a chance to look at the let alone understand its complexity or grasp the concepts laid forth in this paper.

Dr. Ketchum has referenced this study and sighted multiple sources ad nauseam . Blind reference labs were used and DOCUMENTED. Even the editor of the paper was not Dr. Ketchum but Dr. Rayford Wallace. The paper was a group effort and written by many experts in different scientific disciplines. Many are FORENSIC experts which makes them perfectly suited for this type of study.

Once again, you can find many situations on the net, where professional, credentialed scientists ran into human contamination in situations where they took every precaution to avoid such. So, to think that the lay people submitters were able to completely negate any potential human contamination is ludicrous. But don't take my word for it - talk to someone who does this sort of laboratory testing.

Melba providing "great detail on how they avoided contamination" is not the same as actually avoiding contamination. And "great detail" to us lay-people is much different than "great detail" to professional scientists.

"Coring the sample" would NOT have anything to do with it's sterility. It MAY help to lessen the chance of contamination (not eliminate, but mitigate it)... but it CERTAINLY has no way to ensure it is sterile.

"until then I say again, and for the last time READ THE PAPER, provide POINT by POINT, DOCUMENTED, AND REFERENCED criticism." - THis has been done dozens of times now... the MK defenders just choose to pretend it does not exist.

"following labs provided analysis"... yet another fallacy that has been proven false, multiple times. The labs provided sequencing. None that I am aware of, have admitted to providing "analysis" of the results. Now... it's possible that 1 or 2 did, and I am just unaware of it... but patently, all of those labs cited in this post did NOT provide analysis. Some of the labs have even denied that claim outright. But the myth keeps getting perpetuated.

Lastly, re "not understanding how scientists can come to conclusions so quickly about the paper" - Scientists are trained to NOT come to quick conclusions. The fact that they have, shows how bad this data and how wrong these claims are. The fact that the poster can not fathom how they can decided this so quickly, just shows that the poster is not proficient in the arena which he is trying to present himself as knowlegeable about. As such, we should not be paying his opinion any attention.

I never said that Pat and Tom were JREF members. I stated that they were REPORTED to have said they had never seen the paper. One of the JREF members claimed to have contacted all of the coauthors, and Pat and Tom were the only ones who responded.

Both here and in other forums, the coauthors/labs have been reported to have contradicted what Dr. Ketchum has claimed. I suppose if you don't believe it, you can contact them yourself.

Why would I chase down hearsay- and from a very biased source? I just go on the assumption that it's tainted by the agenda that drives that forum. Hearsay is convenient to keep the "conversation" going, but it isn't reliable evidence in my estimation. I'd like to stay focused on the facts.

Tim B.

Tim B - Don't chase down hearsay... chase down facts - contact them DIRECTLY YOURSELF. Do you understand what "hearsay" means?

"I'd like to stay focused on the facts." I have stepped into an alternate universe. We need 'facts and logic police' in North America. My brain may explode from reading claims like this from people who ignore or deny SO MANY facts.

Ok.... well I believe I know what is going on...with respect to the nuDNA. I deconvolved some of MKs data, taking the first 10 or so homologous regions from each of the contigs, using human ch11 as a reference. I then took these 10 regions (~100bp each) and individually blasted each with discontinuous megablast. From this I am calling the ids as follows:

sample 26 - Bear (with some human contamination)

sample 31 - Human (with the possibility of being BF)

sample 140 - Canine (with some human contamination)

This is exclusively from the data in the manuscript. The breakdown is

for #26, 6 of 10 sequences had highest % identity with Ailuropoda melanoleuca (97-100% identity) (3 of 10 human, 1 of 10 Ovis)

for #31, 10 of 10 sequences had highest % identity with Homo sapiens

for #140, 6 or 10 sequences had highest % identity with Canis lupus (98-100% identity), (4 of 10 human)

As for what the unknown is in these contigs (~15 to 30% of total sequence), I still don't know.

And the contigs still only contain about 2% of the data they should if they were meant to represent a whole chromosome. But from what it there, once you sort out the good from the bad, the results are quite clear to me.

Ridge, you are one of several PhD's who have now pointed out that sample 31 may prove to hold the most promise.

Can you remind me what the provenance of that sample is? Was it hair, tissue, blood? I forget, and don't feel like parsing the report at the moment.

[Guest njjohn]

31 was the plate. Blood from the shards of glass left on the plate left out for them. Might have been saliva as well.

[Guest]

TMan... what can I say? logic is to you, as bullets are to Superman. You are impervious.

Can I use that line?

Genes

[Guest]

Wasn't the plate the one from Adrian's KY habituation site? That would make sense. Too many people were involved in that situation so I would put more stock in that one being real. Of course, 26 is Justin's sample, which is under suspicion, so 140 must be Stan Courtney's sample - and to me, it makes more sense for a dog to chew on a rain gutter than a Sasquatch.

I do still hope that some REAL results can be salvaged from the study. One of the docs submitting samples to her study explained to me that her training is as a lab tech, so I'm leaning toward Dr. Ketchum being beyond her experience and training in this whole endeavor, potentially clouded by her religious beliefs. If she would share the raw data openly, then perhaps scientists more experienced with genetic interpretation, like Genes and RR, could figure out where she went wrong and tease out the legit results we all hoped the study would produce.