The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

31 was the plate with the glass shards, I believe. The gutter was 140 chewed on by a big bad wolf (or a related cousin).

[Guest Tyler H]

think I asked this before, andnmaybe it's been answered but can't scannthe thread on my BB.

What sort of sample is 31? Hair? Blood? Could be interesting, but could it just be physical evidence straight from a human?

[Guest]

31 was the plate with the glass shards, I believe. The gutter was 140 chewed on by a big bad wolf (or a related cousin).

OK, my bad - got mixed up on the sample number.

[Guest]

Tyler, my suspicion is it is saliva, blood, tongue, or something BF just ate! That could tie into another thread, but I don't know I want to go there!

[Guest Tyler H]

great - So, my only question is, regarding "contamination" - it actually may not be contamination, but rather, the source itself could be human - no one would have to have died, or been maimed to provide the sample. (I guess that is likely what you meant by "100% contamination.")

Not saying it IS that, but that is one possible situation that would result in the sort of homology you are seeing, correct?

[Guest]

The human component could be straight up contamination from a handler of the sample (who made the plate, set it out, kept it, tested it, etc) - scenario 1. Or some feral human licked the plate (2), or Bf licked the plate and is genetically essentially Homo sapiens sapiens (3) or something licked the plate after consumption of something human (4). Unfortunately, this sample has the least physical evidence - it is not a hair or flesh sample so no morphology.

But yes, it could be human without being contamination.

[Guest Tyler H]

RIght, thanks

Just wanted to make the distinction that when I hear "contamination" i automatically think of two contributors. One being the major contribuotor, and intended "source" and one being a minor contributor, and unintended source.

Because you only mention pure human here, it seems there is no "contamination" or "minor contributor"... but it is possible that the sample is just plain-old, pure human.

If we abide by MK's theories, it is only the MtDNA that is human, so we would not expect to truly see a "pure human" contributor.

Nonetheless, I do agree that this sample is the likely one of the more compelling or at least interesting, from the study.

[Guest]

There is nothing to say that the human like DNA is not from two sources. Given the nature of this sample, it could not have been "decontaminated" by washing as was reported to have been done with the hair samples.

Again, the pure human sequences is only from those regions that have some homology to human. I know this sounds like Catch 22 in some respects, which is why I went back an blasted each piece separately. When it comes back as 99-100% human for 40 sequences, well its human. The remaining 15% or so is likely contamination - given what this sample is, it HAS to have, at minimum, DNA from the many critters that normally live in ones mouth. Not that these other sequences should be present in the contig.

Now remember that this contig only represents 0.5% of what is suppose to be there. Again, the method for assembly of this contig was using Hu Ch11 as a reference so it is possible they only pulled out the human sequences of the pool. IMO, if they could only find 0.5% of the chromosome, they are either rather unskilled in making their contigs or their genomes are not 30X, but more like 1/30X. Perhaps the vast majority of their sequence is from the microbes that is present in the mouth of this "creature". Without raw data, it is impossible to know for certain, but that would be my guess for this particular sample.

The good news, if this does turn out to be a genuine BF sample, it does possess sufficient homology to Hss that I would have no problem believing it could hybridize with modern human. I would find it rather amusing if MK has stumbled onto naming the species somewhat accurately (being Homo sapiens something), while getting the whole nuDNA work so wrong. But again, I have not seen any data that proves this sample is from BF, or that the sample is not just plain Hss. I don't think this sample will be the type specimen.

[chelefoot]

Ridgerunner, I plussed your post and appreciate someone with an understanding of the science taking the time to explain it to those of those who have no understanding of genetics whatsoever (that would be me) - but I am curious....

You may have already answered this and I missed it but, despite the results of Ketchum's study - do you believe sasquatch exists?

Of course, you don't have to answer. I am just curious.

Thanks again for all you do here.

chele

[Guest]

No personal experience, but I would say I am a pretty strong believer. There is simply too much circumstantial evidence and credible witnesses to ignore. But I want to move from belief to knowing, and to understand where this species belongs in the biological ladder.

Had high expectations for the Ketchum study, which sadly does not provide the proof I require to move forward. And there were simply too many problems with the MK paper to let it stand unchallenged. Still hopeful that soon there will be evidence that will satisfy my scientific side, but I don't expect it from MK.

[chelefoot]

Thanks for you response.

I feel much the same as you. I also feel that there is too much evidence along with eye witness accounts for there not to be something out there. But as you said, I want to be a "knower".

I was also a Ketchum follower for as long as I could hold on. At some point in all the drama I began to have my doubts about the study. Now, I have completely lost hope for anything of merit coming from Ketchum based on what I read here, from you and others with an understanding of the science, but have hopes that Sykes will produce something worthy of the attention of the scientific community and hopefully some definitive proof that Sasquatch exists.

Thank you again for taking the time to help us at the BFF understand/interpret the science of the study. It is much appreciated!

[Guest]

Ridgerunner's work has gotten even more attention over the weekend at the OTLS! blog, which has been updated again today: http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/texas-dna-specialist-writes-that-sasquatch-is-a-modern-human-being/

This blog is the best summary of this entire situation so far, IMO. Well-researched, sources cited, links provided - including to appropriate public records. He/she evidently watches this thread, so to whomever you are OTLS!, thank you for a job well done.

[Guest thermalman]

Another pernicious blog to support the "The Following" and their reputation bashing ideology. Who's to say that Smeja is telling the 100% truth? Sounds like Smeja is making himself to be the good guy, which is only normal in a he said/ she said scenario? Happens a million times a day in the world.

"They that are without fault, let them cast the first stone."

Edited April 7, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

The anti-Ketchumites just keep rolling out new versions of the same old song. And hey, it's supported by people with credentials....but we can't say who. Hahaha, gotta love the anonymity of the net.

Until all of the data is released, it's just a sideshow likely perpetuated by the folks who might be in a rush to claim that they "discovered" proof of bigfoot, and not Ketchum. It's in their best interests to deride Ketchum and her study at all costs, in my opinion.

[Guest]

J Sasq.

Ketchum disagrees with you.

Dr. Melba Ketchum

March 24

To those that arent finding all the data in the paper:

The data is with the paper. It is in the Supplemental data files that can be downloaded with the paper.