The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

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

Oh yes, I guess I am. Never mind nothing to see here.

You might be surprised what dogs can do. My dog ate the door.

Well now, that is a very bad doggy....very bad.

[Guest]

I don't know for certain, but I think it depends on the type of biological evidence being stored and how it's stored (as you mention above). For example: I would think a hair or soft tissue samples would be more susceptible and bone being less for obvious reasons. But, I could be wrong - but that has always been my understanding.

oh, if we only had a bone! I believe you are absolutely correct - that is why it is possible to get DNA from archaic humans (up to a point).

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?

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.

I too believe it is more likely that a canine would chew on a pipe (going after something that ran inside it) than a human, but that is speculation. As for creating a novel unknown sequence by cutting and pasting - in this case as the sequencing reads are rather small (say a few hundred bp), so only pasting is required - I feel this is exactly what happened in the generation of the contig. I doubt it was intentional.

^ 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.

is there a video that goes with this sample (honest question).

[Sunflower]

Since this paper is not just about your sample, I disagree and say that all sample ID's start with mtDNA and single contributors. then progresses to nuDNA. Human DNA is primate DNA and is a logical reference. It has been pointed out the other apes would still score high.

Sample 26 may be bear, and if so I wouldn't mind at all removing it from the results. I'm more than ready to evaluate the rest.

SY,

Thanks and I would love it if they would leave the bear sample that Smeja sent to Canada, completely out of this. It really doesn't have a huge bearing on the research anyway. If it never existed there would still be plenty of samples from blood, where a hairy person licked a paper plate with shards of glass glued to it, hair that was obviously not human, bear, dog, cat, raccoon, opposum, etc., saliva, and so on.

There were at least 111 samples so Smeja's bear meat really doesn't matter except for the fact that he claimed he killed two of the hairy people, adult and child.

Also, please watch a PBS special, possibly online soon, called "Neanderthal Decoded" if you can. Dr Paabo with Max Planck Institute, in Leipzig, Germany took a bone identified as possible Neanderthal, removed the bacteria and fungi, and bingo.....it took months and months, and he never gave up until he got to the place where he was convinced that all contaminants were removed and then the naked truth remained.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Sunflower

[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?

Good question. I view "hybridization" as two highly related species, mating to provide a viable fertile offspring. I would consider modern humans (us) as a hybrid of modern human and neanderthal (mostly the former). Hybridization should not cause these problems - during fertilization, the two genomes recombine at homologous regions, creating a hybrid DNA. If this is viable, the cell will continue to divide and form an offspring. If there were problems in the repair process and single stranded DNA, the hybrid would never be born. Even in normal human development, this process is very complicated and I believe most fertilized eggs don't actually create a baby in the end. So I don't see how a novel species would continue with these problems - it would just not be viable.

Edited February 23, 2013 by ridgerunner

[Guest Silent Sam]

For Melissa, this is the exact quote I received from the lab director at Family Tree.

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.

There were at least 111 samples so Smeja's bear meat really doesn't matter except for the fact that he claimed he killed two of the hairy people, adult and child.

It only matters because she's claiming it as definitively coming from a sasquatch.

[Guest Tyler H]

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

Both mt and nu human DNA that were present in Justin's sample were determined to be a match for Justin.

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?

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.

1: Yes, my apologies - sample 31!

2: I've tried asking that question for over a year now... you and others are likely in a better position to comment on that than I am. But I must say from all we are seeing here, that does seem to be similar to what has happened, and it does seem that it can be detected through the lack of homology with other species, and by identifying sequences that match multiple species (in areas that should vary between species). It truly seems to be a frankenstein (Ketchenstein) bit of DNA stitched together from multiple sources. I'm not saying I'm qualified to make that determination, but all the info I have from PhD contacts who have actually done the tedious work required, seems to come to that same conclusion.

^ 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.

If I read it correctly, I think you backed away from this statement, so I'll leave it alone.

2.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.

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.

2: In Justin's case, we had two independant labs do exactly that. My report has been out for 2 months. It was examined and commented on extensively. His sample had two contributors. Bear, with human contamination. The human was a match for Justin. Interestingly, it is the ONLY sample that was tested outside of Melba's direct control, and it is the ONLY sample that proves her conclusion was wrong. Coincidentally, it is now the ONLY sample that people want to throw out of the study. How desperate are these people to believe what Melba has sold them? I've seen this animal - I know it exists. To me, that is not the question. But I'm sorry folks, what are the chances that the ONLY sample that gets independently tested is at direct odds with Melba's most confident claims, and that all the other claims she made are completely credible? We know they aren't. The qualified people who have done the tedium on these samples all say the same thing - these resutls are not reliable. And this comes from skeptics AND believers. So there is no conspiracy from the believers.

5: I agree with you completely - once she releases more physical evidence for independent testing, we will have something closer to the truth. I also agree that allegations of "amateurish structure" of the report, or its release don't really matter. The data, and the physical samples will eventually be vetted properly. BTW, I keep posting thoughts (as to Theagenes, and GenesRus, and Ridgerunner) from people who HAVE done exactly what you suggest - they have dug into the data exensively, and knowledgeably. All of us can dig into it... but only a few are "equipped" to draw conclusions, by virtue of their education.

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.

No, I know this from Melba's mouth, on the phone. She would not assert to me that she had Justin's DNA. I tried to pin her on it, and she kept dodging it. The closest she came was to say "I don't see why we wouldn't have". On that, I can agree with her. Derek Randles and Justin will also both tell you that they know of no way for Melba to have any of Justin's DNA.

I would love it if they would leave the bear sample that Smeja sent to Canada, completely out of this. It really doesn't have a huge bearing on the research anyway.

There were at least 111 samples so Smeja's bear meat really doesn't matter except for the fact that he claimed he killed two of the hairy people, adult and child.

The bearing is as I have stated above. It is the ONLY sample out of the study that has recieved independent testing. Those test results are in direct opposition to Melba's strong, confident assertions about what that tissue was. Until other physical samples that she may still have in her possession, are tested independently, all of her claims are at LEAST suspect - Especially given the shoddy nature of the DNA from the "3 genomes"

[Guest]

^ didn't back away. Just got the wrong pipe in mind.

[Guest BartloJays]

SY,

Thanks and I would love it if they would leave the bear sample that Smeja sent to Canada, completely out of this. It really doesn't have a huge bearing on the research anyway. If it never existed there would still be plenty of samples from blood, where a hairy person licked a paper plate with shards of glass glued to it, hair that was obviously not human, bear, dog, cat, raccoon, opposum, etc., saliva, and so on.

There were at least 111 samples so Smeja's bear meat really doesn't matter except for the fact that he claimed he killed two of the hairy people, adult and child.

Also, please watch a PBS special, possibly online soon, called "Neanderthal Decoded" if you can. Dr Paabo with Max Planck Institute, in Leipzig, Germany took a bone identified as possible Neanderthal, removed the bacteria and fungi, and bingo.....it took months and months, and he never gave up until he got to the place where he was convinced that all contaminants were removed and then the naked truth remained.

May I ask, do you want to get rid of the Sierras sample because:

A)You believe it’s from a “hairy person†but you’re willing to sacrifice the best sample to protect Dr. Ketchum’s reputation?

B)Or you now accept it’s bear and you want to get rid of it quickly so it doesn’t ruin the rest of her study?

I'm sorry, but how you can sit there, justify and protect "THIS WOMAN" (as if being a woman should insulate her) to the extent you would accept her tossing her centerpiece sample out of convenience...a sample that she billed someone tens of thousands of dollars to continue testing on...is beyond imagination.

The primary piece of her study that’s actual “tissueâ€â€¦closest thing to a body and the only one vetted independently with conflicting results, the one she just lied about again on national radio with switching samples (first it was that Justin took piece off the body) now because “we’re supposedly worried it’s not an ape†and it’s OK to just get that inconvenient piece out of there?

You know as much as this has been a passion in my life and as grateful as I am to be a “knower,†there’s been periodic snapshots in time where I’m truly embarrassed to be associated with this subject in any form. This moment right now is one of them

Edited February 23, 2013 by BartloJays

[bipedalist]

Bart, as much as I respect you and your work, you know as well as I do, that nothing in the world of Bigfoot is wrapped up in nice neat little packages with a beautiful tied ribbon and bow.

It is messy work. Those that get down and dirty have my utmost respect. Those that hoax, my contempt. I hope we can find out the difference and the classification of how the chips fall with respect to this project.

Right now it is not looking good, the judge and the jury are in absentia until independents weigh in. (and, not taking anything away from the efforts of several in this thread to shed light on inconsistencies).

Edited February 23, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest gerrykleier]

No, I know this from Melba's mouth, on the phone. She would not assert to me that she had Justin's DNA. I tried to pin her on it, and she kept dodging it. The closest she came was to say "I don't see why we wouldn't have". On that, I can agree with her. Derek Randles and Justin will also both tell you that they know of no way for Melba to have any of Justin's DNA.

She could have gotten DNA surreptitiously (licked stamp, envelope, fingerprints on paper etc) and not want to admit that because of possible legal ramifications. Or if none, she might end up looking bad.

You could make a case that she was suspicious about JS's story from the beginning and has always played details of her actions with him close to the vest.

GK

Edited February 23, 2013 by gerrykleier

[Guest Tyler H]

She could have gotten DNA surreptitiously (licked stamp, envelope, fingerprints on paper etc) and not want to admit that because of possible legal ramifications. Or if none, she might end up looking bad.

You could make a case that she was suspicious about JS's story from the beginning and has always played details of her actions with him close to the vest.

GK

There is nothing illegal about her getting his DNA off a stamp (although, she would have no way of knowing it was HIS DNA on that stamp). And again, if she had it, you cna bet your boots she would have said "yes" when I asked her, not "I don't see why we wouldn't have" and "we got DNA from most of our submitters"... and that sort of answer. By saying "most" it obvious that it was not "all".

[southernyahoo]

May I ask, do you want to get rid of the Sierras sample because:

A)You believe it’s from a “hairy person†but you’re willing to sacrifice the best sample to protect Dr. Ketchum’s reputation?

B)Or you now accept it’s bear and you want to get rid of it quickly so it doesn’t ruin the rest of her study?

I'm sorry, but how you can sit there, justify and protect "THIS WOMAN" (as if being a woman should insulate her) to the extent you would accept her tossing her centerpiece sample out of convenience...a sample that she billed someone tens of thousands of dollars to continue testing on...is beyond imagination.

The primary piece of her study that’s actual “tissueâ€â€¦closest thing to a body and the only one vetted independently with conflicting results, the one she just lied about again on national radio with switching samples (first it was that Justin took piece off the body) now because “we’re supposedly worried it’s not an ape†and it’s OK to just get that inconvenient piece out of there?

You know as much as this has been a passion in my life and as grateful as I am to be a “knower,†there’s been periodic snapshots in time where I’m truly embarrassed to be associated with this subject in any form. This moment right now is one of them

I think Justin's sample could very well be from a bear. The photo in the study I hadn't seen until the paper published. I've seen that morphology in known samples of bear, so that could seal it for me on sample 26. This whole nuDNA genome stuff and the use of next generation sequencing seems more problematic than I had thought from reading how it assembles sequences. I had questions about whether it would stitch two or more together or manage to seperate them and sequence them seperately thus providing two seperate genomes. That doesn't appear to be what happened, so there is the challenge in interpretation. I've not heard it explained where the unknown sequences come from. they are lengthy stretches at times it appears, maybe artifact bogus sequences or a third contributor. It would be interesting to know if those repeat in other samples.

On the issue of removing sample 26 from the study,that may hinge on whether there is a third contributor, one which known references won't align to. Perhaps that is bacteria or plant, I don't know, it would probably depend on how you blast it.

I'm not going to throw in the towel on the other samples just because the Smeja sample has problems or challenges. I think Dr. Ketchum knows what she's doing in the general structure of the study, I won't fault her for outsourcing the samples for sequencing, and I don't think she did all the interpretations of the data.

I think Scientists are wrong sometimes, and should make adjustments in their conclusions when they have to. Being wrong doesn't nullify their good work elsewhere.

I understand your disappointment, and the gravity of this situation but I've got no apologies to make for believing her lab and the others can or could isolate the contributors and identify species. I recall Sykes had a similar run in with mystery DNA and bears. Where was the homology that should have revealed that instantly? Obviously he gets a break because 1. He didn't call it Yeti but a mystery or unknown. 2. He's your boy now right?

[Guest]

It keeps coming up about this one sample, that visually looks different from the one in the study, The samples were washed to remove contaminants from the samples,

she had other samples to compare it to. Evidently, the single sample tested by the 2 labs were not washed or the results would have not had justin's dna on it.

It was said the those 2 labs had slight differences from each other, and the funds were limited for testing. I don't see how this one sample is trying to be used to bring down the whole study.

There are people who are believers or experiencers, saying the other people and labs who were involved in the paper had nothing wrong with their work, and the submitters most likely sent in BF samples, and here paper supports they were from BF, but She is wrong, no one else, I don't get it.

[Guest BartloJays]

Oh man, thanks for clearing all that up zigoapex

Eat your respective hearts out Genes, RR, Theagenes etc...

[Guest]

There are people who are believers or experiencers, saying the other people and labs who were involved in the paper had nothing wrong with their work, and the submitters most likely sent in BF samples, and here paper supports they were from BF, but She is wrong, no one else, I don't get it.

Did anyone expect that every sample would come back as BF? This seems absurd to think so from the start. Perhaps some submitters should have submitted some true negative samples (blindly), just to see what would happen. It is called the "negative control". I understand the contributors are all attached to their samples, so would likely send in there best, but when the study finds

" All 111 screened samples revealed 100% human cytochrome b and hypervariable region 1 sequences with no heteroplasmic bases that would indicate contamination or a mixture."

I find this suspicious. No, unbelievable. The probability of this is near zero. No one else concerned by this?

I don't think MK did much of the interpretation of the data, but heavily relied on what she was being told with respect to Q30 scores, contigs, EM, etc, and took it as valid. I think there were definitely some errors made well before it got into the hands of MK. But MK promoted it, and came to the grandios conclusions that are not supported by the data in the manuscript. I am sorry, but there is no clear data in this manuscript that PROVES there is a new species! The mtDNA is human, as previously shown by other (who just thought it was contamination). The nuDNA is such a mess that nothing there can be interpreted (as presented) and could just as well be a human sequence interwoven with mystery dna (heck, let's call it angel or alien for the moment). At the end of the day MK published her work, and MAY need to either make a major correction or retract the paper outright. The buck stops with her, even if others did make mistakes.

That said, let supporters and critics alike continue to analyze what we have, and see if we can't shed some more light on the subject.

Edited February 24, 2013 by ridgerunner