The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

It was because of what she said in the phone call that's why. Which also doesn't sit well.

Also, in regards to that interview. I can live with the braiding, family of five, dreaming, and psychic stuff. Why? Because the context is ambiguous and unknown. I can see if someone is working diligently on something that they would dream about it, especially if they were stressed about it. I used to dream about working at Starbucks sometimes years ago because it was so nightmarish. They psychic stuff like it speaks to me etc. could be put down to an allegory or being a metaphor as to how powerful of a symbol that the alleged Squatch Steak is/was. Braiding? I'm open minded about that. Sounds crazy, but I think they are very intelligent and not dumb apes as Justin suggests. Family of five? Makes perfect sense. I don't know why Justin would have an issue with this. Again, seemingly dumb solo apes theory espoused by Justin. He also doesn't buy the stick structures. But he's new to the field so I have to take his knowledge base with a grain of salt until he gets caught up to speed. He speaks with the arrogance of a hunter, a killer, who sees all creatures as inferior and deserving of death for consumption or hanging on the wall. Case in point is shooting from the passenger seat of a truck.

But what comes across loud and clear is his testimony on Hersom and the sample. There's very little wiggle room for interpretation there.

If what was said on the phone is fact (I wasn’t there so can’t take a position of this being factual or not) this is not a good premises to do a “dirty†yourself. If MK did in fact suggest certain things, I can agree that it doesn’t set well either.

I’m getting a terrible feeling that with all this coming out, and most of this is she said, he said….it opens it up for litigation. MK has more to lose reputation wise, and probably would be the party to start such action.

I can see that her statement that the other labs would get “X†results if the evidence was tested by them, was because their method of testing (perhaps method-equipment) would yield “Xâ€. If I recall I’ve read over the years that when suspected BF evidence was sent in for testing it was announced “human†in almost all findings. Or, it was human based on contamination..by humans. I’m not up on this DNA, said that a couple of times. But if BF is somehow related too (or we our related too BF) us, I can see the DNA coming back as human. I think MK is on to something on how to distinguish (to pull out) the BF DNA. That is not to say, I agree with or disagree with, what I’ve been reading about this or that concerning the method of publishing, method of testing, or the critical opinions of her character.

…all I can say is, since this “bear†issue has come out. The hairs on my neck have relentlessly said…….something is wrong here.

Concerning your last sentence. I'm not at up to speed on it. So will have to find time to see the collation of it.

Edited February 24, 2013 by treadstone

[Guest TwilightZone]

That's a great question, TwilightZone! I wish I had thought of comparing this paper to MK's manuscript as a way of highlighting the qualities of a bona fide scientific paper.

First, The PLoS One paper has BODIES! Seven bodies - with bones, blood, skin, muscle and organs (and DNA). There is no question of provenance with the PLoS One samples. There is no guessing what brushed against a tree or fence, what left blood on a board with nails, slobbered on a car window, or pooped along a trail. They have bodies with detailed descriptions and photos (ewwww, monkey genitals), and they can get more any time they want for you and me to study.

Second, using standard techniques and primers they amplified regions of nuclear DNA and created a contig with homology to known Cercopithecini and partial homology to human Xq13.3. There were no regions that were non-homologous to ANY KNOWN ORGANISM in GeneBank. There was nothing in their DNA studies that would make a geneticist wonder "did they do something wrong, or are there artifacts?"

Third, they have detailed morphological analysis of the bodies/skeletons and behavior that showed that various morphological and behavioral parameters differed significantly from those of known Cercopithecini. In other words, they have both DNA and physical/behavioral data to support each other.

Forth, the manuscript was published in an established (not one issue with one paper), highly-respected journal (that has a pretty good impact factor, a senior editor, an editorial board, and published instructions for authors and reviewers) after peer-review. You don't have to pay to read the paper.

Yup, there's a clear difference in quality. Hope that helps.

Genes

Thanks so much for that, Genes. It does help! Every time I hear Ketchum grumbling about her reams of data vs. their smaller amount I keep thinking its 'quality not quantity'!

[Sunflower]

OK the boots schmoots, whose boots are they anyway? How do we know that they belong to Justin, the driver is not talking? His boots have bear blood, could be his blood (if he knifed himself during a butchering process) and possibly others, he's a taxidermist right?

I read the taxidermy forum and he was, to me, anyway just testing the waters hoping he might find someone there who would either ask him questions or verify.

[Guest]

It feels good to have this out finally and all cards on the table now.

Everything Justin said was 100% true though I wasn't there for the conversation with Melba obviously but he called me within an hr of getting off the phone with her. Btw, that was the only error I could detect from Justin. He stated we talked the next day, it was actually the same night and to say he was rattled, deflated, frog in his throat etc... Is an understatement.

I also cant tell you how bad I wanted this out long ago (was very pissed off about it), but regardless of multiple witnesses, it's "hearsay" and we needed to first check the evidence and be responsible about it.

Anyone have doubts about what he's saying, answer me this... How did she prophetically know what a regular lab would get if he got the sample tested ......all the way back in Jan 2012? She must've figured out it was "a bigfoot" through regular, not next gen testing methods to confirm that to Justin so quickly after receiving the sample. Matter of fact, the genome wasn't supposedly complete on Sierras until "after" Nature turned the paper down.

Also what gives her the balls to call him and tell him to destroy that sample? Maybe she's already tested it with regular methods, knows it's not a bigfoot and thinks he doesn't believe his own story so of course he's going to destroy it. The last thing he's going to do is call me upset and tell me "I think she's a fraud."

Say what you want about Justin, but he could've stayed shielded by her as she's essentially "protecting" and "perpetuating" the so-called "hoax," instead he came to me and we tested with promise of transparency. Thankfully, Tyler was promised a piece from the beginning and we're both fairly like-minded, so we joined forces to hit two labs, one Canada, one US, one University, one private, one specializing in animal dna, one that specializes in human dna.

I think most of you know who's telling the truth here in regards to the ethics behind the scenes (the shootings need substantiating evidence more then poly and later thermal footage). Just look at actions and motivations. i also tried to leave you hints along the way.

I find your suggestion insulting frankly .... "that camp." No, we're getting boots tested as was always the plan. If they yield something, great! We're going to give it our best shot. But that's my problem, and my dollar, thank you for your concern. If we get nothing, then move forward researching the hell out of that site in the summer and try to get any evidence we can. I cant guarantee there was bigfoots there on Oct 10 2010 but I can guarantee there was bigfoots there Aug 25th 2012.

Bartlojays, the implications of what Justin has said are pretty terrible and part of the reason I think we may be speechless.

Serious enough allegations to warrant respectful discussion and few of us have any first hand knowledge and those that do seem to have NDAs.

If you feel like answering great, if not I understand that too,as it has probably been answered many times..

When and by who did MK first come into contact with Wally. When did he begin funding the study? What motivated him, or who, to contribute to the study?

Edited February 24, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest mitchw]

Bart, I have a few questions.

-Do you think there is any connection between Justin's experience with Ketchum and Sally Ramey's departure from the study?

-Didn't Paulides bring Ketchum into the study in the first place? Do you know what he's up to now?

[Guest]

Yes, negative control. Precisely.

I'm trying to digest this Negative Control.

[Guest BartloJays]

OK the boots schmoots, whose boots are they anyway? How do we know that they belong to Justin, the driver is not talking? His boots have bear blood, could be his blood (if he knifed himself during a butchering process) and possibly others, he's a taxidermist right?

I read the taxidermy forum and he was, to me, anyway just testing the waters hoping he might find someone there who would either ask him questions or verify.

Maybe before speculating you should educate yourself in the details, who’s done or claimed what etc….I’ve got the boots he wore the day I met him and were the same boots he wore the day of the purported shootings. The boots are being tested now within days and I think the best thing we could’ve done was hold them out (especially away from Dr. Ketchum who was continually requesting them) and wait for the smoke to clear. They are potentially the only non-circumstantial evidence from the claimed shootings and we’ve already stated we’ve done the best inventory we can on what contaminants might be present from both before and after the shootings. The forensic animal contaminants that could be present according to Justin, who gave me full disclosure from memory, are the blood from the juvenile he claimed to shoot, ungulate (white-tail specific), bear (would be only prior to shootings), turkey, duck and fish (sturgeon, catfish and maybe trout). In addition, there’s some environmental possibilities and I would imagine from swimming in them in San Pablo bay (considerable saltinity that time of yr) after their boat broke down after the shootings, whatever organisms and or microscopic plant life indigenous to that bay that time of year. I’ve been told, and I’m not diagnostic expert by any stretch, that the biggest culprit we may have to deal with is the saltwater from the bay but I would defer to Genes, RR etc.. who would know better.

Bottom line, it’s a longshot but definitively worth the shot. I’m confident that if it’s there and retrievable, we’ll get it with the testing efforts I’ve arranged to be undertaken. If it’s not, and I accept the results we got on the circumstantial tissue we got, then the shootings may never be substantiated with physical evidence as I’ve said from day one. If Melba’s genome outweighs the efforts of our labs (that’s out of our control) well then I can’t think of a better scenario for everybody, but it’s not looking good.

The driver has talked (again do your research) and was interviewed by myself and Ro, which will be included in Ro’s documentary. If you bothered listening to what Justin said, and many of us have been told by Jack personally that when he heard what he did on this call it made him not want anything to do with bigfooters or bigfoot community. Can you blame him if what Justin, his wife and Jack claim they all heard is correct and one portion (she stated prophetically..â€what regular labs will getâ€) has been confirmed?

In regards to the taxidermy forum. Since I met Justin he’s consistently stated he gave a very conservative opinion about what he assumed the subjects were purposely, “testing the waters†with his peers. I believe that’s been discussed on here previously many times and is reasonable.

Again, these are just the facts as I know them personally

Edited February 24, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest J Sasq Doe]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. Far too much speculation, innuendo, and just plain petty gossip. Let's just stick to the facts.

The only fact that I can ascertain within this subject matter is that Dr. Melba Ketchum has completed a study of Sasquatch DNA, and presented it to the public. The study arrives at some conclusions. Those conclusions have not been proven to be incorrect by anyone of note or significance. Ditto for the data and her methodology. And until, or unless, an identifiable expert in that field obtains the data from her study and confirms or denies her conclusions, then her conclusions stand.

At this current moment, her study's conclusions stand.

Her study is not dependant upon her lack of perfection as a human being. It also does not depend on the Smeja sample, nor does it depend upon some alleged telephone call whether it is real or fictional. Her study is also not dependant upon her character, business dealings, or any other imaginary fault or accusation thrown out by her critics.

When people with a dog in the fight start making accusations, and create a sideshow of sorts with their steaming heap of innuendo, one needs to be careful and be certain not to step in it. It all distracts from Dr. Ketchum's study. I simply cannot imagine what would motivate some folks to do that.

And I must repeat, until, or unless, an identifiable expert in that field obtains the data from her study and confirms or denies her conclusions, then her conclusions stand.

Edited February 24, 2013 by J Sasq Doe

[Guest BartloJays]

Bart, I have a few questions.

-Do you think there is any connection between Justin's experience with Ketchum and Sally Ramey's departure from the study?

-Didn't Paulides bring Ketchum into the study in the first place? Do you know what he's up to now?

on the first one I have no idea to be honest

on the second, I believe he did bring her into the study but this was before I was ever involved to any extent so i can't be certain. of course, Paulides brags about this to anyone and everyone. To be honest, because of Melba's prior involvement with Biscardi going way back (I don't know to what extent) would've been enough to keep me from giving her those boots. The only way she was getting them based on the red flags I saw (even before "the call") was that her work was scientifically validated and then and only then would I have felt comfortable giving her the boots to try and get potential genetic link between parent and child (that's all conjecture and assumption btw).

BTW, I spoke with Paulides a few months back and I flat out told him the truth of everything because I didn't want him to be blindsided, including what Justin and the witnesses claimed on the call. He obviously wasn't persuaded as the next thing I know he's telling people that Justin switched samples on purpose and insinuating without naming me that because I'm in the BFRO, he's been slandered previously etc... not only untrue, but completely irrelevent. Maybe he wouldn't have said this in regards to Justin had I not neglected to mention that the sample tested in Oklahoma, which was the other half of Dr. Ketchum's piece was out of Justin's custody for over 18 months.

Edited February 24, 2013 by BartloJays

[Guest mitchw]

thx, Bart.

[Sunflower]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. Far too much speculation, innuendo, and just plain petty gossip. Let's just stick to the facts.

The only fact that I can ascertain within this subject matter is that Dr. Melba Ketchum has completed a study of Sasquatch DNA, and presented it to the public. The study arrives at some conclusions. Those conclusions have not been proven to be incorrect by anyone of note or significance. Ditto for the data and her methodology. And until, or unless, an identifiable expert in that field obtains the data from her study and confirms or denies her conclusions, then her conclusions stand.

At this current moment, her study's conclusions stand.

Her study is not dependant upon her lack of perfection as a human being. It also does not depend on the Smeja sample, nor does it depend upon some alleged telephone call whether it is real or fictional. Her study is also not dependant upon her character, business dealings, or any other imaginary fault or accusation thrown out by her critics.

When people with a dog in the fight start making accusations, and create a sideshow of sorts with their steaming heap of innuendo, one needs to be careful and be certain not to step in it. It all distracts from Dr. Ketchum's study. I simply cannot imagine what would motivate some folks to do that.

And I must repeat, until, or unless, an identifiable expert in that field obtains the data from her study and confirms or denies her conclusions, then her conclusions stand.

I agree with your post and it's always been my thoughts about how this should proceed. Thanks, I was getting slightly annoyed at how much mud was being picked up and thrown around and let it get to me.

[Sasfooty]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. Far too much speculation, innuendo, and just plain petty gossip. Let's just stick to the facts.

When people with a dog in the fight start making accusations, and create a sideshow of sorts with their steaming heap of innuendo, one needs to be careful and be certain not to step in it. It all distracts from Dr. Ketchum's study. I simply cannot imagine what would motivate some folks to do that.

Plussed!!! I'd give you a dozen more if I could.

I have a dog in the fight & I haven't seen anything to cause me to doubt her findings.

I don't know what motivates it either. I guess most of the world has just gone crazy.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Sasfooty

[Guest]

@J Sasq Doe

+1 for you.

[bipedalist]

Actually I think the thread is very much grounded, J Sasq Doe and the ridiculousness is couched in why simple answers can't be given within the complex web of confusion. Like, "where is that editorial board and where are those other papers of the Journal of Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology?

Not to wear it out but........ *crickets*

Ketchum made it difficult on herself. It will take a team of scientists to peer review what appears never to have been reviewed from the outset. Until that day comes. Constructive criticism does not equal ridiculousness.

Edited February 24, 2013 by bipedalist

[Guest Tyler H]

Why would anyone want to send a sample in and say it was from a suspected species, yet knowing that it wasn't? Why would there need to be a such deception implemented to begin with? This idea of even thinking about pulling a deception, doesn't set well!

It's been answered... but it's not "deception" - it's a test to make sure your processes are working properly. Almost mandatory in a lot of scientific studies.

I would agree. There's something that's not been discussed or intimated in the paper regarding the outsourced samples. Dr. Ketchum has said that when she sent samples out that she had told the labs the samples were human. I assume this was because she was having them do a specific test in which she knew what the outcome would be, and seeking affirmation. I wonder if this suggestion could influence the results or change the protocol when blasting. She claims she had replies from the labs saying it wouldn't blast and "what is this" as a common response. With so many samples providing fully human mtDNA it seems she was testing what should be positive controls for human, but getting negative results for human on those tests. The reports about the male lineage being responsible for the novel DNA still makes me wonder about the Y chromosome DNA and if any could still be had from my sample.

SY - when you say "Your Sample" - can you tell me a bit more about it? How did you go about collecting it? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the circumstances.

thanks

Bartlojays, the implications of what Justin has said are pretty terrible and part of the reason I think we may be speechless.

Serious enough allegations to warrant respectful discussion and few of us have any first hand knowledge and those that do seem to have NDAs.

If you feel like answering great, if not I understand that too,as it has probably been answered many times..

When and by who did MK first come into contact with Wally. When did he begin funding the study? What motivated him, or who, to contribute to the study?

Bart, you may have more insight on this, but I had thought Derek got Justin and Wally in touch with Melba.

This thread has gotten ridiculous. Far too much speculation, innuendo, and just plain petty gossip. Let's just stick to the facts.

The only fact that I can ascertain within this subject matter is that Dr. Melba Ketchum has completed a study of Sasquatch DNA, and presented it to the public. The study arrives at some conclusions. Those conclusions have not been proven to be incorrect by anyone of note or significance. Ditto for the data and her methodology. And until, or unless, an identifiable expert in that field obtains the data from her study and confirms or denies her conclusions, then her conclusions stand.

At this current moment, her study's conclusions stand.

Her study is not dependant upon her lack of perfection as a human being. It also does not depend on the Smeja sample, nor does it depend upon some alleged telephone call whether it is real or fictional. Her study is also not dependant upon her character, business dealings, or any other imaginary fault or accusation thrown out by her critics.

When people with a dog in the fight start making accusations, and create a sideshow of sorts with their steaming heap of innuendo, one needs to be careful and be certain not to step in it. It all distracts from Dr. Ketchum's study. I simply cannot imagine what would motivate some folks to do that.

And I must repeat, until, or unless, an identifiable expert in that field obtains the data from her study and confirms or denies her conclusions, then her conclusions stand.

How on earth can you say her conclusions stand?

I have performed a study of the moon, and determined that it is made of cheese, and my conclusions stand... until some expert that I accept can directly examine my claims, and prove them wrong one by one. Yes, I know several have already proved that wrong... but they are not credentialed enough for me to accept their "theories".

You seem to have science backwards... her conclusions CAN'T stand until they are proven and repeated by others. Until then, her conclusions undeniably do NOT stand - they lie (that is the opposite of stand, right?).

In any scientific field, when anyone challenges all the accepted norms of that field, and makes grandiose new "conclusions" those conclusions are set aside until other qualified people can agree with them and/or replicate them. EVERY scientist that has parsed Melba's data, done the homework, and BLASTed them, has concluded that the data is extremely suspect, and/or shoddy.

Edited February 24, 2013 by Tyler H