The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[MIB]

See my answer to SY. The other "parent" WAS identifiable. It was bear. Bear was found to be the primary contributor, and has been found to play a major role in the genome that Melba mapped from Justin's sample.

This doesn't sound like we're talking about the same thing. Are you talking about mito or nuclear? Just to be clear, what mitochondrial DNA was present in Justin's sample that you're looking at?

MIB

[Guest]

Thanks Genes! I downloaded the article a couple of days ago and immediately thought "they have bodies" too. Then I thought it might be cruel to really compare the two - soooo different. But you did a good job (without being too snarky).

Snarky? Who, me?

I used my quota of pluses for the day, but I would give you one for all your posts. You have managed to remain level-headed through all the comments.

I also liked Tyler's comment about "Frankenstein DNA."

Genes

[Guest Theagenes]

My PhD contact that has been puzzling away on this for a while now, and working with the raw data, thinks that sample 140 is dog, just as sample 26 (justin's) was bear. But he thinks that if any sample shows promise, it is sample 34. It shows only human sequences, with no junk sequences from non-primate contributors. So, either it is a purely human sample, or it could be the real deal, if you believe that Squatch are that human. I have no idea how thoroughly the chan of custody was tested against this sample, or how you could rule out the possibility that the sample was something that originated directly from an unidentified human.

Given that sample 140 is the drainpipe that was chewed on and had puncture marks from teeth, this would make a lot of sense. That sounds much more likely to be a dog than a BF. On sample 34, did you mean 31---the other full genome sample?

I also liked Tyler's comment about "Frankenstein DNA."

Given that the raw consensus sequence is essentially just a text string of A's, T's, C's, and G;s how hard would it be for a knowledgeable person to create the appearance of a hybrid with some creative cutting and pasting of partial sequences from different species? Just out of curiosity.

[Guest]

Given that sample 140 is the drainpipe that was chewed on and had puncture marks from teeth, this would make a lot of sense. That sounds much more likely to be a dog than a BF.

Perhaps Stan would make a comment on the details of this occurrence, he was responsible for submitting the sample to Melba.

[Guest]

^ I could see a dog or canine of some sort coming in after the fact, but there's no way in hell a dog could do what was shown on that video. No way.

[Guest]

^^ I didn't know there was a video. You are not mistaking this for the skunk in the pipe are you?

[Guest]

I have a question for those who feel they might be qualified to answer because this is way over my head. Assuming these DNA samples are from a unknown human relative like it is claimed. Is it possible that this completely unknown genetic material actually comes from either the problems that arise from the hybridization process and or maybe even faulty DNA repair process due to the numerous single stranded segments that was reported in the paper? Would it be logical to conclude that such a genome would put unnatural stresses on the chromatin making multiple breaks more likely leading to strings of novel DNA by the repair process?

[Guest]

^ I could see a dog or canine of some sort coming in after the fact, but there's no way in hell a dog could do what was shown on that video. No way.

You might be surprised what dogs can do. My dog ate the door. Edited February 23, 2013 by squatting squatch

[Guest]

Got a question for Genes, Ridge, Theagenes etc...

Does Ketchum automatically own her sequence data like an intellectual property situation?

Let me rephrase that because this is very important.

Is it justifiable to not release "full" sequence data because ownership and control of that sequence data could be relinquished or non -protected if she was to do so? If yes, are protective ownership measures feasible to get enacted rather quickly? Bottom line is concern for ownership of sequence data a realistic excuse not to share it?

Thanks in advance guys

Hmmmm. It may be considered intellectual property if she made up the data somehow:)

(I just got to Tyler's 'Frankenstein DNA' comment, and came back to edit my comment...Maybe her paper is a big pseudo sci-fi book/story that she self-published, so when people start publishing, or using her data without her express written consent, a law-suit is the big pay-off:) I'm kidding, of course...Well, kinda. It's hard to say what this lady is capable of. If that was what this is, I'd consider it a masterpiece, and applaud her.

Edited February 23, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher

[JDL]

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.

1. Skeptic's razor again.

Bigfoot can't exist, therefore all bigfoot sightings are false.

Bigfoot can't exist, therefore all purported bigfoot DNA is contaminated.

2. Any sample collected by any means from the field must be expected to contain contamination. Who knows what the bigfoot itself is carrying around on its own body from the prey it has hunted and consumed, another bigfoot, or its pet hamster?

So, after mapping out the provenance and chain of custody of the sample, the first step has to be to determine how many sequences are contained in the sample. Then isolate each and identify each.

3. Each Smeja sample must be treated as a separate case with regard to contamination. Every time samples from this source are handled in an unsophisticated manner, a unique contamination profile can occur.

If he pets his dog on Monday just before sending out a new piece, then there is the prospect of dog contamination.

If he sets it down on a surface that has been used for bear on Tuesday before he sends out the next, then bear contamination.

And there is always his own DNA and that of other humans to consider.

4. So how many sequences are there in each given sample? Which one(s) are known? Which ones aren't known? What do the unknowns tell us?

5. I don't doubt that that there are some problems with the report, but the physical evidence transcends the quality of the work. If the evidence exists, then it can be analyzed, and modern forensic techniques provide the means to factor out contamination. Crime scene investigators do it daily.

So criticisms of the quality of the report are distractions when they are used to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Get past those, dig into the data to isolate good information from suspect information in the data.

Then ultimately go back to the samples themselves and replicate the analysis.

6. There's a lot of similarity between filtering out baseless skeptical opinion from objective commentary and filtering out contamination from source DNA.

Edited February 23, 2013 by JDL

[Guest]

There's also that other problem....Aren't most of the submitted samples from people just wandering through the woods, and happening to see some hair somewhere? Does anybody actually claim to have seen the BF event that led to the gathering of the hair samples? Did any of the submitters actually know that the hair came from an actual BF?(I'm not being snarky, btw...Honest question) Submitters are 'hoping' it came from a BF, correct? DR's case is the only one I know of where there was reason to believe his sample actually may have come from a BF.

[Guest]

This is apparently a "documentary" (nope it's web podcast...argg) with the UFO/Paranormal lady Linda Howe, and MK, posted today found with a simple Google 'Ketchum DNA" last 24 hours search... (hoping some traditional scientist with a name pokes head up and ends this debate. wasn't that promised by several sources?)

I have not watched it. Someone above referred to Frankenstein or 'out of this world' DNA...and it does sound like lab error or analysis artifacts rather than actual ET DNA..but I am assuming this is where those rumors started and persist..? Or shows like this?

lol Ok I guess i have to open the vid... why don't writers provide a summary anymore? I promise to try and listen, no matter what I think...!

http://www.unknownco...g-possibilities

oh dear...first claim is "all traditional scientists turned away, refused to look at the truth" (wonder how Meldrum & Sykes feel about that claim?)..... Ok.... it feels very melodramatic...I doubt i can provide any commentary objectively (I'll get hung up on flavor...lol)...so I am signing off.... .I am still listening...

Now saying GenBank would not accept the data (7:12)... I think we figured out she insisted on uploading under her new taxon (although she states this slightly differently this round)? Had she uploaded as unknown to identify they would accept? Also claiming her work "proof" and (7:46) one lab refused to interview with Howe even though they extracted the DNA b/c it would destroy credibility of lab to be associated with her theory..the 15K ypb hybrid....

OK I am in this 10 or so minutes and still complaining no one will listen after five years of her life dedicated to this..... .. she says "a lot of peer review done" which will come out, and the new JAMEZ used younger more modern reviewers and she passed, but again could not publish b/c too risky....but all those "reviews" will come out.... ? Why not just the acceptance letter and old Editor of Jamez...that would be enough w/o revealing actual reviewers?

Ok guess I am committed to listening...coffee!

Edited February 23, 2013 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

Did Ketchum arrange for your own DNA to be submitted so that contamination issues could be addressed?

That was the point of sending the bucal swabs. Exactly how they processed them and compared to the results from the sample, I can't answer for. The swabs represented myself and my brother whom would have the same mtDNA plus an associate whom also collected hairs from the tree, so we might only see two different profiles from the swabs.

[bipedalist]

.....I have tried to shout this from the rooftops at least 10 times on this forum, but I guess it keeps getting missed. Melba did not collect Justin's DNA. She keeps trying to phrase things so as to leave the impression that she got DNA from all submitters, but it is patently false. Perhaps she got some, but she did not get all. I find it shocking that of three fully mapped genomes which she claims "match human", at least one of them was never compared to the DNA of the submitter.

And you know this how? On Justin's word?, because he passed a polygraph without that question included? Why would Ketchum play dumb when she knows the significance of the need for that control sample of his DNA? Sloppy work? Or, maybe she did get it, like from a licked envelope or the like?

Or, have you blasted your lab samples against what Ketchum's data contains in hopes that his contamination was included with the sample provided to her too, that is if samples provided to you and to her were the same.

Just thinking out loud.

Speaking of which, anybody blast this thing against a marsupial like a 'roo...... just for the helluvit?

Edited February 23, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest]

continued comment on above interview of MK and LNH...who really focuses on the "vanishing" reports of BFs or UFO connection at end..... those are the anomaly reports even in BF witness reports....IMO and of the same percent perhaps associated with human activity/ufo.... and now LNH is pushing the ET connection (DNA manipulation 15k ybp..ahh..the Angel DNA?)...... I see, that is the rumor in the MK camp...isn't it? Out of this world DNA per David Paulides?

Howe asks for closest progenitor male line...MK hinted more toward lemur ..LOL.... I do expect Lemur as there is little explanation in this world for the incredible eye shine/glow (and flashes!)....except a Taptum Lucidum or bio-luminescence....or/ and complete unknown (UFO connect or synergistic relationship)....so....leans more toward Lemur for me....

we don't know the genetics of most fossil lines ape or human....the split from Lemurs way back...45M ybp..and more......but that line also has that pseudo opposable thumb (do BFs ...witnesses vary as hard to tell I guess....) and would explain lack of material culture (and patience of BFs/silence....) and a few other things..so the question that always arises for me is this: 1) did H erectus or other ancient hominids (or even us) have a TL.or the genes that might turn on that feature (and off in us?)

2) is it possible...co-evolution of a lemur line....that was isolated (say new world) until humans get here and able to mate?

so I got off track....not listening to the boo-hoo no one believes me ( how many here have already given 5-years of their life on this?...lol MK don't blame this pursuit on your financial difficulties..it looks to me this was a boon in down times?) and my imagination does get fired up.... with the possibly of these ancient genes....(or even latent in us..is this just a protein coding on/off thing?)

Have to agree with the no hunting....

and she calls them human/people...... their intelligence i agree is human like....and not...so I do struggle given the current data (or my experience) that they are simply a sub-species human.(although that fits better than "ape?") a relict hominin could live that differently (H erectus had some tools, BFs have some tools) .they feel more different than just human...maybe that is superficial (the eye shine, lack of material culture , lack of body art)...so perhaps those who go the New World Primate aren't so off a possible route...

Howe now pleaing for other scientists to look into it...and "blocking" this is not fair science...so..here is a problem...what is a valid and justified rejection of a paper vs bias/societal taboo?.........

p.s. at end another interviewee claiming took too long for results and final report a 'lie'...this is echoed by many...... even the "bear" samples seem to have taken very long...but, ques and $$ can dictate that in ways not obvious to the customer.

ANYWAY lol.. it doesn't matter now..the deed is done, forever more many websites will carry these views and this study to support that claim..no matter what anyone says in the future......and so it is another addition to the pile of unverified claims and relegted to the paranormal...unless? This actually gets reviewed/replicated.....or Sykes data agrees.....

Edited February 23, 2013 by apehuman