The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest DWA]

I think I understand the loyalty of the Ketchum supporters. They think this is Hope, and they're clinging to it.

Too many people follow this field from sideshow to sideshow, and sidestep the science that's going on (Meldrum and the TBRC, most prominently). Each time something like this comes up, it's The Opportunity, and people disappointed time and again tend not to want to let those go by.

I'm not going to address the problematical nature of the "this is bigfoot" claim. Except to say this: without a specimen that can be clearly identified from which this came, no it's not.

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I sure don't know enough about DNA testing to offer any insight about that process, but I do know enough about science and the scientific method to comment on how things are going in this thread.

The sciency peeps have every right, based on their longstanding (and effective, so far as it goes) methods. Confronted with results that suggest either 1) a very improbable creature exists in multiple species with DNA sequences that don't make a lot of sense, or 2) the DNA study was done inexpertly and on contaminated data, the scientific way is to choose #2. We routinely call that "Occam's Razor."

It remains true in the philosophical sense that it could be the case that, say, aliens produce a new bigfoot whenever they need one out of whatever DNA they happen to have on hand, but it's also true in that same philosophical sense that so far as you know I might be a purple unicorn typing this out with my golden horn on my stolen iPhone (which, since I have no hands to hold it, I have a winged monkey holding it for me).

Now, is it more likely that what I just typed is true or that I'm yanking your chain?

Since you aren't invested in the idea of purple unicorns and winged monkeys, you will no doubt choose "you are yanking my chain," and by doing so, you will have exercised "Occam's Razor" yourself.

Until someone can produce good evidence that they should change their minds, most scientists consider bigfoot no more real than the purple unicorn, nor should they. The failure of this enterprise has nothing to do with science or the scientific method.

Edited to add: This means that the sciency peeps are not out of order in offering their skeptical opinions. They don't have to wait for more data since they've seen enough to assume the contamination.

Edited March 5, 2013 by blogsquatcher

[Guest Silent Sam]

I might be a purple unicorn typing this out with my golden horn on my stolen iPhone (which, since I have no hands to hold it, I have a winged monkey holding it ).

I thought I was the only one.

[Guest DWA]

I sure don't know enough about DNA testing to offer any insight about that process, but I do know enough about science and the scientific method to comment on how things are going in this thread.

The sciency peeps have every right, based on their longstanding (and effective, so far as it goes) methods. Confronted with results that suggest either 1) a very improbable creature exists in multiple species with DNA sequences that don't make a lot of sense, or 2) the DNA study was done inexpertly and on contaminated data, the scientific way is to choose #2. We routinely call that "Occam's Razor."

It remains true in the philosophical sense that it could be the case that, say, aliens produce a new bigfoot whenever they need one out of whatever DNA they happen to have on hand, but it's also true in that same philosophical sense that so far as you know I might be a purple unicorn typing this out with my golden horn on my stolen iPhone (which, since I have no hands to hold it, I have a winged monkey holding it for me).

Now, is it more likely that what I just typed is true or that I'm yanking your chain?

Since you aren't invested in the idea of purple unicorns and winged monkeys, you will no doubt choose "you are yanking my chain," and by doing so, you will have exercised "Occam's Razor" yourself.

Until someone can produce good evidence that they should change their minds, most scientists consider bigfoot no more real than the purple unicorn, nor should they. The failure of this enterprise has nothing to do with science or the scientific method.

Edited to add: This means that the sciency peeps are not out of order in offering their skeptical opinions. They don't have to wait for more data since they've seen enough to assume the contamination.

Major plussed. My take on this whole business, in the proverbial nutshell.

[southernyahoo]

I just don't understand the loyalty of the Ketchum supporters. I'm assuming many were hoping this paper would provide vindication from the scoffing and outright mockery they've endured from friends and family. Now comes this paper with a stated goal of proving Sasquatch exists in order to give the creatures protection ...

...But the raw data that is supposed to really prove their existence is kept secret. Was proving them really the goal? Seriously?

You should feel really let down rather than defensive, IMO. Ketchum left you out there on a limb, she piled more opprobrium on the topic than ever. What earthly reason could there be for her to keep the "beautiful science" secret except it doesn't exist?

Some of the raw data, being reportedly human, might only be allowed to be analysed in private and under agreements to not publish publicly. A complete human mtDNA genome would technically belong to some human being, whether they were a contaminating contributor or the source of the sample. I would think that a release would have to accompany such publication of human DNA and ofcoarse there would have to be some sort of provenance that the DNA was from a particular person.

[WRabbit]

Fbfb commented on someone else｀s post that dr. Ketchum was no expert on bigfoot. And they think they are？ what a joke.

IMO, neither have proven themselves to be an expert on Bigfoot. Melba will get there if her findings are accepted/verified by the scientific community. As for FBFB, they have a steep hill to climb and not enough legs to do so....

[southernyahoo]

First, I just want to thank everyone for the discussions here.

I'm still stuck on the 16 mtDNA haplotypes out of 20 samples. Does this mean 16 races of squatch or a blend of all 16? It seems like this would be a smoking gun for puzzlingly random contaminations (16 races of bf researchers?), or more likely I just don't understand it.

Is there a scenario where it makes sense? Please help me!

1. Ketchum's outside labs sequenced contamination and not the source of the samples.

2. Early settlers in this country ugh.....had intimate relations with some related hominin.

3. There is an undocumented migration out of Europe and over the atlantic that occured thousands of years ago which had contact with this unknown hominin.

4. Aliens made a hybrid from a diverse group of modern humans. They are bred to survive an apocalypse, and are serving as a living breathing Genbank.

[Guest]

There must be a legal way for Dr. Ketchum to register the study and all the data

that goes with it as hers. Upload it to a data bank, and have it copyrighted, notarized

and registered as hers.

I am not at all familiar with the laws on intellectual property, but I know they exist.

Therefore, there is a standard process for claiming authorship and ownership of said

property.

If she would just do that part of it, the full data could be released and reviewed

by others. I feel this would benefit her as much as all the people who are interested

in seeing what's in the Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study.

This is so obvious, I can't be the first person to suggest it!

Gene patents are their own little world which I avoid completely, but my understanding is that she would need to provide the sequence, prove that it's a novel sequence (as in not previously patented), and show its function or use. Basically, she would need to do more than say "Here's a Sasquatch DNA fragment. Patent please." She would need to say, at minimum, "Here's a Sasquatch DNA fragment which has been shown to be linked to [insert your favorite genetic disease or condition]." Even then, I imagine she'd have a hard time getting a patent; it'd probably be treated similarly to patent applications for cold fusion or perpetual motion machines and rejected for lack of functionality or utility.

Some of the raw data, being reportedly human, might only be allowed to be analysed in private and under agreements to not publish publicly. A complete human mtDNA genome would technically belong to some human being, whether they were a contaminating contributor or the source of the sample. I would think that a release would have to accompany such publication of human DNA and ofcoarse there would have to be some sort of provenance that the DNA was from a particular person.

The general rule in the United States is that we do not own our discarded cells or whatever is extracted from them. The leading case in this area is Moore v. Regents of U. of Cal (1990) 51 C.3d 120. Moreover, bigfoot has no privacy rights under the law; if the sample is from a bigfoot as MK claims, she should be able to publish it without concern.

Edited March 5, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest Steve Byrne]

1. Ketchum's outside labs sequenced contamination and not the source of the samples.

Thanks SY

Intentionally? every sample? How about they never received the real samples at all?

If this was a collect and destroy mission, could it have been done any better?

This possiblity scares me, but to be as incompetent as she appears after spending 5 years on this, seems untenable. It's too many **** haplotypes to be even random contamination. It seems intentional, if I understand it. I'd prefer to update my understanding.

[Guest]

I think I mis-read something. So, forget that.

Leisureclass - I copied your link - and I intend to read that later.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Melissa

[Cotter]

If this was a collect and destroy mission, could it have been done any better?

Highly doubtful it could have done better.

[Guest]

Thanks SY

Intentionally? every sample? How about they never received the real samples at all?

If this was a collect and destroy mission, could it have been done any better?

This possiblity scares me, but to be as incompetent as she appears after spending 5 years on this, seems untenable. It's too many **** haplotypes to be even random contamination. It seems intentional, if I understand it. I'd prefer to update my understanding.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

In this case, it seems like MK was way outside her expertise. As I understand it, her day job is (or at least was) working with animal breeders to figure out which animals should be bred with which mates.

She also says that she did forensic DNA testing, which, is pretty straightforward and deals with a closed universe with well-established procedures and technology.

That's a big difference from taking a bunch of samples of unknown provenance, attempting to extract an entire genome, and then analyzing the results.

[Guest]

Melissa, this is on the GenBank home page ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/ ):

"Privacy

If you are submitting human sequences to GenBank, do not include any data that could reveal the personal identity of the source. GenBank assumes that the submitter has received any necessary informed consent authorizations required prior to submitting sequences."

This makes it sound like GenBank doesn't actually demand documentation of consent authorizations from submitters even if the samples are human. Can anybody confirm whether they do or not?

[Guest]

ScottG - I think it was GeneRus (I am sorry if this is wrong) who said Ketchums claim about GenBank not allowing human sequences - was untrue.

I would think the one thing GenBank would be the most concerned about is the privacy of the person (if a human contributor).. But, they pretty much spelled out that, this specific responsibility, is on the submitter of the sequences to GenBank.

Hum..

Edited March 5, 2013 by Melissa

[southernyahoo]

Thanks SY

Intentionally? every sample? How about they never received the real samples at all?

If this was a collect and destroy mission, could it have been done any better?

This possiblity scares me, but to be as incompetent as she appears after spending 5 years on this, seems untenable. It's too many **** haplotypes to be even random contamination. It seems intentional, if I understand it. I'd prefer to update my understanding.

Well theoreticly, there could be that many different types represented in the researchers collecting the samples, but not sure if the entire mitochondria could be sequenced from a few errant cells clinging to the samples which got past the washing process. I can only vouch for the fact that my impression of the sample I sent in was not from a human based on observations during collection and further examination under the microscope prior to it being sent. To the naked eye looking at them though, they might pass for human pubic hairs.

How about they never received the real samples at all?

I seriously doubt there was a switch of samples, but that can be tested again independently.