The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest njjohn]

Trust me Tyler, I have no illusions that it's simple lol. The other two samples were blood taken from a downspout which could be taken without human contamination and the food plate was also dealt with forensic methods to eliminate contamination. I never said there was no chance during the illumina setting, but if the contamination is at the illumina and all testers had their DNA on file, it's easy to remove those from contention.

All i'm saying is that it's too convenient to just write it off to contamination until they dig deeper on the full raw data. I haven't jumped in support of or against anyone with this ordeal.

I'm glad pics will be included this time. The only pictures of Justin's sample I've seen were the ones circulating here with it in his hand, until I saw the one in Melba's report. I have the utmost respect for you and Bart, so this hasn't been an attack on your work at all. I think those that have paid attention to me in my short time since officially joining the forum will see that I will question anyone and everyone in search of the truth. If things raise questions, I won't hesitate to question it.

[Guest TwilightZone]

I'm not going to point out the part - but let me say THANK YOU for a good laugh Twilight..

YW! And I bet I know which part, lol!

first - lol

second, I have info regarding the data. I know that there are people who have seen much more of the data than what is apparently currently available for download. They are still parsing it, but it seems that it may be closer to the amount of information for a whole genome, in at least one of the instances. They do feel quite certain that said raw data is all very shoddy and did almost nothing to rule out contamination which lead to amalgams of sequences... Snippets of human, snippets of bear, snippets of everything that was present in the sample. Illumina is very good at detecting EVERYTHING present, and then giving gobs of data. But without proper efforts, analysis, interprettion, etc etc, it's a pile of hay.

Very interesting news... I was curious if anyone had gotten the whole ball of wax concerning the data and what they thought so far.

Also, I do apologize to anyone if my sarcasm ever comes over as trolling. It is just so hard having paid attention to this report for so long and then seeing what came out in the end when I feel like so much more was promised. This Magnum Opus was supposed to prove Sasquatch is real but it appears to be moving the football the wrong way.

[southernyahoo]

While everyone focus on the Smeja sample (Which visually to me definitely does look different) it's surprising that the other two samples that resulted in full genomes that collection was ideal with no chance of human contamination--unless intentional--are being written off to contamination.

The photo of the smeja sample definitly looks different from the typical black bear and certainly wasn't a thin piece of hide. A core sample from that should be quite suitable for ID and whole genome.

As to the snippets.. It's my understanding that human and animal dna is similar in many shared respects. You will get small hits for every animal on the planet. Small hits don't mean it's that animal or contamination. The blast would give the overall similarity, not just a string here or there. Again, not an expert, so someone else can chime in and tell me if I'm wrong.

In some areas of the genome I would agree, though at loci where species ID are done, it's typical to use somewhere between 500 to 1500 base pairs. Species specific primers should produce that without issue from what I've read and assuming minimal degradation. I'm not a big fan of using these barcode ID methods on prospective BF samples particularly because they use mtDNA, which is reportedly fully human, and has repeated in prior testing.

[Guest gerrykleier]

It's important to remember that MK claimed to sequence 3 FULL SASQUATCH GENOMES. If anything like that occurred, it will be there to see. All of the rest of the negative stuff just won't matter much. I have my doubts whether she did what she said she did, but I have no real working knowledge of DNA sequencing at all, and can only watch from the sidelines.

Getting her full data set into Gen Bank and into the hands of interested specialists is certainly her job of the week!

I don't think there is a necessity to publishing the names of the specialists who will be reviewing her data. They probably want to examine it without being hassled by the Media, BFers, Skeptics etc. However it would be GOOD idea if that COULD BE done as it would dampen clamor concerning the presumed low level of credibility of said unknown reviewers which will almost certainly start up. It may not be possible.

If Sykes asks to look at the Data, I think both sides should acknowledge that without further comment.

She's taken her initial hits, but there certainly is public interest in her work. If the data gets into the right hands and she's accomplished something substantial, that will gradually dawn on people. If it was an epic face-plant fail, that would also be clear. Time will tell.

Just IMHO as they say on the internet!

BTW, don't get this flu that's going around. It's HORRIBLE!

GK

[Guest Captain Caveman]

Here is a question - why is Erickson looking for funding to release this footage?

LOL, Melissa, I just found out about the big release a couple of days ago, and I've got that question*, and more...

1. How much Bigfoot habitat was lost to logging the paper needed to sign all of the documents relating to this whole shenanigan? If said documents actually exist.

2. What the heck is an "armchair scientist" and, in point of fact, why isn't her claim vice-versa vis-a-vis 'real' scientists? Pardon my french, but you get the picture.

3. Did Matilda drink the juice from the camera battery for her psychic breakfast, or did she require the cameraman to sign an NDA before consenting to be filmed?

4. How are the Sierra Kills linked to all of this? Or are they? They only submitted the biggest sample, after all.

5. Will Sykes results confirm or deny Ketchum's claims? There's always tomorrow, believers! Or, in this case, another $30.

6. If she was reviewed by her "peers", does it mean Paulides and that Russian guy? Why wasn't Michael Merchant on the jury?

7. Most importantly, how much for my own journal?

Mostly I'm laughing at the whole thing because I've actually read a good portion of this thread from the very beginning, but in recent months just lurking from time to time since it tends to go in circles. (One day it'll become an archeological record of the membership of this board. Maybe a new kind of poster will evolve that's not a troll but not a human, a hybrid if you will...) Even though the topic has been thrashed to death, with much serious and good discussion from both sides, I don't recall anybody suggesting that she'd try to start her own journal! What an outcome! I'm looking forward to going back and reading everyone's comments.

Narp, the camera is very close to the subject, as Drew suggests. ... with the twigs in the scene, it pretty much spells it out, the camera is likely less than 10 feet away, and more than 5. Drew nailed it.

I see that too. The size of the subject is indeterminate, IMO. I have no idea if that would be enough to cover the ceiling in my rumpus room, or even the inside of my Volkswagen Van, so I'm certainly not coming back in the middle of the night to steal it off of that guy's front yard.

Peace,

CC

* funding would be drawn to real primate footage like moths to a flame. At this point I'm willing to bet my club, so to speak, that that is not a real animal. I'm both appalled and amused, frankly, by the audacity of all of this.

edit: Sorry, you guys must've read 1,000 jokes about shag carpeting by now, but I couldn't resist.

edit #2: It looks like there's a rat moving around in there, too. Gross.

Just to add, regarding the distance and focal length of the lens, maybe a better question would be, with a focal length of X, how close would I have to be to the subject to get a similar effect. That could help narrow down the possibilities. Ooh! Maybe there's a formula based on relative motion of objects in time? Or someone could derive one? Not me though, I'm just a caveman.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Captain Caveman

[Guest]

GK,

I seriously doubt she will release the whole data set. I believe she is holding the rest of the data for future publications in De Novo (I believe she has an "in" with the editor!). What she has published is only a part of Chromosome 11, so this is all all I would expect here to submit to GenBank (which would be the scientific norm in some respects - scientists often only put out parts of their data if there is more than one publication worth).

If she put it all out there, the data would (could) be mined quicker than she could say "peer review" - ok that was a cheep shot. This would be great for the field though, as we could sort out the true meaning of the data. But the she would loose control of this, and I don't think she would want to. If I was her, I would be shopping around for some serious players for collaboration - I suspect a number of scientist would curious enough to be willing to look at/ analyze her data, and if it comes up true, publish with her. She has not done anything so egregious that someone would give up being a co-author of the paper of the century!

As she does go on in her paper that she has 3 WHOLE genomes to support her new species claims, so maybe she SHOULD put it all on GenBank. Not sure how the raw data would be submitted there though. And my issues are with their assembled contigs (which is what I expect her to upload). Hopefully she is providing the raw data to her chosen external reviewers.

And who know, it is even possible MK could be vindicated, if other came to the same conclusion from the raw data. But she will have to release the data to find out.

[Martin]

Why didn't Wally or Erickson just give Janice Coy the $500k, swing by Texas and grab Melba + Robyn ForestPeople then go dig up Fox after they attended his funeral, get his cadaver and use the money to relocate his family to safer territory.

[Guest]

Captain Caveman said:

LOL, Melissa, I just found out about the big release a couple of days ago, and I've got that question*, and more...

Oh my goodness - look who it is Glad to see you're getting up to speed on this event !!

[Guest gerrykleier]

GK,

I seriously doubt she will release the whole data set. I believe she is holding the rest of the data for future publications in De Novo (I believe she has an "in" with the editor!). What she has published is only a part of Chromosome 11, so this is all all I would expect here to submit to GenBank (which would be the scientific norm in some respects - scientists often only put out parts of their data if there is more than one publication worth).

If she put it all out there, the data would (could) be mined quicker than she could say "peer review" - ok that was a cheep shot. This would be great for the field though, as we could sort out the true meaning of the data. But the she would loose control of this, and I don't think she would want to. If I was her, I would be shopping around for some serious players for collaboration - I suspect a number of scientist would curious enough to be willing to look at/ analyze her data, and if it comes up true, publish with her. She has not done anything so egregious that someone would give up being a co-author of the paper of the century!

As she does go on in her paper that she has 3 WHOLE genomes to support her new species claims, so maybe she SHOULD put it all on GenBank. Not sure how the raw data would be submitted there though. And my issues are with their assembled contigs (which is what I expect her to upload). Hopefully she is providing the raw data to her chosen external reviewers.

And who know, it is even possible MK could be vindicated, if other came to the same conclusion from the raw data. But she will have to release the data to find out.

I think the big dogs, Paavo, Sykes etc would be happy to join in if they thought there was something there. If she has faith in her data, she probably sees no reason to share the spotlight with newcomers and will continue to push her study as is. I am not qualified to make a very accurate judgement, but the initial response to the publicly available portion of the data has been mostly negative. If there's some THERE in the nuDNA, 3 whole genome part, then she has a lot of bargaining leverage with people who may be much more expert interpreters of relic Hominoid DNA and who carry a lot of weight with the Scientific Community. How they work out the details is up to them, but the opportunity certainly seems there for the taking. Once again, that presumes her technical skills at isolating the DNA are good. There are still some samples left over, so I seem to recall.

I don't know how much she has to release to get their attention, or exactly how it has to be done, but determining that correctly seems the way to success now.

I've wondered throughout this if the problem simply put, was her forensic technical skills were up to par, but she lacked the specialized, in-depth experience with similar DNA. Others clearly do. The recent Neandertal/Human discoveries come to mind. For all the mud slung at her, she might have been quite competent at the technical portions of the task. If so, her study will have legs.

I suspect (and have pretty much thought this from first hearing about the study) that her study is the first salvo and the final 'Bigfoot Discovered' paper will have some well known names alongside hers beneath the title.

GK

[Guest BartloJays]

The photo of the smeja sample definitly looks different from the typical black bear and certainly wasn't a thin piece of hide. A core sample from that should be quite suitable for ID and whole genome.

I would agree with you that the core sample is absolutely suitable for both ID and a whole genome (more then enough maybe 50 times over), however, the photo I think you might be referencing is deceiving in that it gives the illusion of a thicker sample then it really is. That perception naturally increases when others are tossing out the word "steak" to describe it. In reality, the Sierras sample as a whole was not inconsistent with being hide with some tissue attached. In addition, the sample is consistent at least in color with the predominant local bear population that has blondish coats like this guy: (we've seen several in the area).

http://www.flickr.co...N03/3609267557/

With my OK report you're going to see several accompanying photos of the tissue as well.

That report is ready to go BTW as I'm just waiting for one more thing to attach

Edited February 21, 2013 by BartloJays

[Oonjerah]

Quote#124 gerrykleier, "If Sykes asks to look at the Data, I think

both sides should acknowledge that without further comment."

and #129, "I think the big dogs, Paavo, Sykes etc would be happy to

join in if they thought there was something there."

Sykes has expressed interest. See Sykes/Sartori thread below.

[Guest]

The photo of the smeja sample definitly looks different from the typical black bear and certainly wasn't a thin piece of hide. A core sample from that should be quite suitable for ID and whole genome.

Black bear doesn't mean black hair. I've seen black bear with light colored hair to black. The one thing I find odd is that pic of Ketchum sample could very likely be bear and Trent lab report says it's bear and the lab Bart sent his sample to came back bear. That's a lot of bear. Ketchum as done a lot of talking, but hasn't released a single thing to backup accusations. Where is the documentation of the bias journals? Where is the documents for the journal she bought? Why be so secretive about these basic things if you're on the level? Who was the original editor of the journal you bought the rights from? I can't think of any reason to keep all this secret if your out to get the government to recognize sasquatch and protect them under the endangered species act. That's Ketchum goal right? So why so stingy with the proof? Her actions don't reflect her statements.

[bipedalist]

GK,

I seriously doubt she will release the whole data set. I believe she is holding the rest of the data for future publications in De Novo (I believe she has an "in" with the editor!). What she has published is only a part of Chromosome 11, so this is all all I would expect here to submit to GenBank (which would be the scientific norm in some respects - scientists often only put out parts of their data if there is more than one publication worth).

If she put it all out there, the data would (could) be mined quicker than she could say "peer review" - ok that was a cheep shot. This would be great for the field though, as we could sort out the true meaning of the data. But the she would loose control of this, and I don't think she would want to. If I was her, I would be shopping around for some serious players for collaboration - I suspect a number of scientist would curious enough to be willing to look at/ analyze her data, and if it comes up true, publish with her. She has not done anything so egregious that someone would give up being a co-author of the paper of the century!

As she does go on in her paper that she has 3 WHOLE genomes to support her new species claims, so maybe she SHOULD put it all on GenBank. Not sure how the raw data would be submitted there though. And my issues are with their assembled contigs (which is what I expect her to upload). Hopefully she is providing the raw data to her chosen external reviewers.

And who know, it is even possible MK could be vindicated, if other came to the same conclusion from the raw data. But she will have to release the data to find out.

If she releases the study "in sequence" as chapters or parts, was it apparent in the manner in which her publication is titled or subtitled?

Having not read the paper, I'm asking. From what I've seen it is not Roman Numeraled as if it is a piece-meal paper.

That said, you can read back to page 175 of the original thread and see where I predicted the effort could very well lead to multiple sequenced 'studies'. (p. number approximate lol). It would make sense if she has all the wonderful and beautiful, never seen before data that is described so glowingly.

If the big dogs show up to the table, I hope it is soon and declarative in some sense, to get people off the sidelines.

[southernyahoo]

If she put it all out there, the data would (could) be mined quicker than she could say "peer review"

I bet you're right about that, geneticists in the medical field seem to be quite litigous and determined to patent some new test to ID a disease or perhaps "this" new species. The person who has done the ground work to find it, gets first shot at that.

[southernyahoo]

Getting her full data set into Gen Bank and into the hands of interested specialists is certainly her job of the week!

Well, you can't just go grab someone's DNA and load it in genbank, the mtDNA sequences are fully human, so they would have to be accompanied by a release from the donor.

Sykes can tell you about how some native american sequences were loaded and studied under scandalous circumtances. It is a real obstacle for loading those in genbank.

If you think about it, showing a full body HD video at close range under the pretense that it is fully human or quasi human might require something similar.