The Ketchum Report (Part 3)

[Oonjerah]

 

As stated above, I've not followed her announcements. Much of what she said 

last spring in the news, I've forgotten. 

 

Did she ever say how many of her samples are Bigfoot? Was it 4? 

Did Matilda donate a sample? 

 

If she has more than 1 Bigfoot sample, are they consistent, compatible? 

================

 

Another thing: If her study has failed utterly, as some have said, I know

that's hard for people who invested time, effort & faith in it. But such a

failure proves nothing about Bigfoot. 

 

Bigfoot exists or he doesn't. There's nothing we can say to change that.  

[chelefoot]

She says all the samples in her study are BF.

 

Yes, Matilda was a sample. But she claims that she sent it to another DNA expert who lost it. (He says he sent it back to her and has proof to back that up)

 

As for this:   If she has more than 1 Bigfoot sample, are they consistent, compatible? 

According to her they all came up 100 percent human mito....but she has changed that now to a "Little" human.  So, who knows.

[AaronD]

I haven't been following this so apologies....where did dhe get her samples from/ not Smeja as his all came back 'bear' yes/

[Guest]

 

  

Through all my conversations with Dr. Ketchum she has always maintained that the mtDNA was fully modern human.

 

 

Dr. Ketchum, November 19, 2013

I just can't understand why there is such an aversion to our study. The findings are just like for humans with a percentage of Neanderthal DNA, only our findings show the novel Sasquatch DNA to be predominant in the genomes, with the human component being the lesser contributor. In other words, Sasquatch are Sasquatch, with a little human remaining in them from the original crossbreeding long ago. It is really simple to understand.

 

 

 

Dr. Ketchum, October 21, 2013

As the paper stated, we had 3 kinds of results from all of the samples in the study: 1. The gave unequivocally human mtDNA results. On nuclear loci we got 2. 100% human sequence at some loci 3. Unknown sequence at some loci 4.Failure at some loci even though the human controls performed perfectly at all loci.

 

Dr. Ketchum, July 25, 2013

OK, the Matilda questions. Her mitochondrial DNA was tested by Disotell with human results like all of our samples.

 

 

[Guest]

Yes SY.  What's your take on her now saying that she only found a small amount of human DNA in the mito?

 

I know you addressed SY, but I want to emphasize that I, for one, was stunned enough when she went public with "100 percent" and "fully" human because I knew better from what she told me herself. Why she has suddenly contradicted all of her previous statements, I don't know. She IS into revisionist history, as anyone who monitors her FB page and posts in groups has observed. But to go back on something she has been recorded and documented as saying in so many venues for so many months is mind-boggling. She can't go back and edit what she has said in interviews like she can delete/edit FB posts, etc. 

 

Again, anyone who bought into her fully human mito story should be outraged ....and questioning what else she'll change about her story. To me, this should be the ultimate red flag for those who still buy into her "study."

Edited November 24, 2013 by Shboom2 in GA

[chelefoot]

I haven't been following this so apologies....where did dhe get her samples from/ not Smeja as his all came back 'bear' yes/

Smeja's sample was the centerpeice of her study, one of the 3 that she supposedly did the nuDNA testing and "Full" genomes on,  She claims Justin's sample is BIGFOOT.  Even after 2 (now 3) other labs have found bear...she claims Justin "Switched the samples".  An offer was made to have HER sample re-tested by a neutral lab at no cost to her - but she refuses.  She also will not return the sample to the owner (Derek R.)

[AaronD]

For crying out loud! Ok, I am getting the picture now......

[Oonjerah]

She says all the samples in her study are BF.

 

Yes, Matilda was a sample. But she claims that she sent it to another DNA expert who lost it. (He says he sent it back to her and has proof to back that up)

 

As for this:   If she has more than 1 Bigfoot sample, are they consistent, compatible? 

According to her they all came up 100 percent human mito....but she has changed that now to a "Little" human.  So, who knows.

 

My view is to stick with her original report since she has not published

a revision of it: mito is fully human. 

 

At this point, I'm really far more interested in her nuclear DNA findings. 

Who's the Daddy?  Let's find him & hold him responsible for what he

did 15,000 years ago.

 

What creature matches the nuDNA?  

 

Or am I coming up against another rule of genetics?  I could use some

help here. 

 

The mtDNA shows, always, what species the creature is.  When you 

look at the nuDNA, you will find the same species as the mtDNA ... always.

Is that how it works? 

 

Or ... running the DNA for a mule, is the mtDNA horse, and the nuDNA a donkey? 

Or ... just the Y chromosome of the nuDNA is donkey? 

 

for Bigfoot: "It's headed a little bit more toward the lemur line." I don't imagine DNA

heading this way or that way. It's either a lemur, or it isn't. 

[chelefoot]

I'm no DNA expert, so I should let someone else take this one. All I know is the mito comes from the Mother and the nuDNA comes from the father.

 

So, no, we don't know the father, according to her. She made the statement that is comes closer to lemur than human or ape, but technically is "unknown"

 

Feel free to correct me folks....Like I said, I am not a DNA expert or even a novice. I just know that 100 percent does not equal "A little".

The mtDNA shows, always, what species the creature is.  When you 

look at the nuDNA, you will find the same species as the mtDNA ... always.

Is that how it works? 

 

I don't think so....but need a DNA knowledgeable person to answer that for you.

[BobZenor]

I can understand people wanting to complain about certain things but she didn't change and say they are 100 percent human.  She said the mtDNA is 100 percent modern human. What she said about the mitochondrial DNA is consistent with what she has always been saying and it is perfectly consistent with her theory of sasquatch having only a minor contribution from modern humans.  I don't remember her speculating how much modern human was in the nuclear DNA.  The mtDNA is essentially irrelevant to how "human" something is besides it having to be close enough to mate.  That is why the lemur theory was so preposterous.  MtDNA of modern humans logically should have implied that the original population that had the first modern human female mate with one of them was at least a "hominid" as in bipedal walking ape that is closer related to us than it is to chimpanzees. The common ancestor with a lemur was 65 million years ago and a bear was maybe 75 million years.  It would be almost as absurd mating with a lemur as successfully mating with a bear.  It was a bad basic biology error but hopefully she learned.  It doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't understand sequencing but she needed to learn something about evolutionary biology if we wants anyone to take it seriously. 

 

I haven't given up on her sample being a sasquatch by the way.  The algorithms that pointed to lemurs or possibly also bears may logically have not been suitable to the kind of species association that was being done.  Some people seem to believe Smeja killed a bigfoot yet found a chunk of bear flesh with hair the color of his reported shot bigfoot in the same spot.  Something there definitely doesn't add up.  If he shot a bigfoot there then how did a bear get sent as a sample.  I have to question all their bear testimony as dubious.  Obviously the bigfoot part of that question becomes even more dubious if you believe their DNA results.  I have to pretty much throw out the statement that Melba wanted him to destroy the sample as not from a credible source. Impossible to sort out

 

She has used what I took to be colloquial or "dumbed down" phraseology like saying something to the effect that the female part was modern human and the male part was something else.  Imprecise statements like that could confuse people that didn't know a point was probably being made. They might think she meant they were half modern human.  She apparently thought they are humans since they mated with us.  That is why I don't like the term human used when talking about ancient bipedal apes.  It is just ignorant to make the distinction as if it has meaning.  That was another serious error but huge numbers of people including most biologists that really should know better call anything bipedal or in the genus Homo human and that irritates me just as much as her mistake.  Don't think just because it is a custom to call anything in the genus Homo a human that it is logically correct.  Some Australopithecus giving birth to a human is the logical result of that bogus distinction.   The point that she was probably trying to make was that mtDNA come down a female lineage and the rest came from something else.  That was just an example of what I consider a poor and confusing choice of words.  I assume that she just used a confusing analogy because it has to be to make any sense.   If I were to complain so loudly as some do about her it would also be at a large majority of people and not just her for making what to me are basic biology errors.  Some of the biology snobs seem to take it personally because she apparently didn't understand evolutionary theory.  It is very difficult for me to read past their anger especially when I often see them do similar ignorant things. 

Edited November 24, 2013 by BobZenor

[chelefoot]

I can understand people wanting to complain about certain things but she didn't change and say they are 100 percent human.  She said the mtDNA is 100 percent modern human. What she said about the mitochondrial DNA is consistent with what she has always been saying and it is perfectly consistent with her theory of sasquatch having only a minor contribution from modern humans.  I don't remember her speculating how much modern human was in the nuclear DNA.  The mtDNA is essentially irrelevant to how "human" something is besides it having to be close enough to mate. 

 

No, she is now saying that they are NOT 100percent human mtDNA.  Now she is saying the mito is only "a little" human. It's quoted a few pages back.

[southernyahoo]

Chelefoot, the mtDNA from the mother IS a small amount of DNA by comparison to the nuclear genome.

 

I'm no DNA expert, so I should let someone else take this one. All I know is the mito comes from the Mother and the nuDNA comes from the father.

 

The nuDNA has equal contributions from both mother and father, so it has a lot of recombination with each generation. This is why, "theoretically" the contribution to modern european human nuclear DNA from neanderthals is quite small today but does indicate that the first modern human/Neanderthal hybrid was 50/50 in the nuclear DNA.

 

The first BF/human hybrid would have been 50/50 but with continued generations and assuming the females were favored and fertile it is theoretically possible for them to have fully human mito and a diminishing amount of modern human DNA in the nuDNA.

[southernyahoo]

Yes SY.  What's your take on her now saying that she only found a small amount of human DNA in the mito?

 

I need quotes.

 

 

 

Dr. Ketchum, October 21, 2013

As the paper stated, we had 3 kinds of results from all of the samples in the study:

 

1. They gave unequivocally human mtDNA results.

 

On nuclear loci we got

2.100% human sequence at some loci

3. Unknown sequence at some loci

4.Failure at some loci even though the human controls performed perfectly at all loci.

 

 

[southernyahoo]

 

Dr. Ketchum, November 19, 2013

I just can't understand why there is such an aversion to our study. The findings are just like for humans with a percentage of Neanderthal DNA, only our findings show the novel Sasquatch DNA to be predominant in the genomes, with the human component being the lesser contributor. In other words, Sasquatch are Sasquatch, with a little human remaining in them from the original crossbreeding long ago. It is really simple to understand.

 

 

Read what I said above, and if that fails, watch this link on autosomal DNA and the other three types. Simple and informative. 

 

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/extras/molgen/auto_dna.html

 

Please note that this is only to understand what she believes is happening with the testing and findings. 

[southernyahoo]

I know you addressed SY, but I want to emphasize that I, for one, was stunned enough when she went public with "100 percent" and "fully" human because I knew better from what she told me herself. Why she has suddenly contradicted all of her previous statements, I don't know. 

 

Okay shboom2, What exactly did she tell you was in the mtDNA? Your NDA has been lifted.

 

 

I can understand people wanting to complain about certain things but she didn't change and say they are 100 percent human.  She said the mtDNA is 100 percent modern human. What she said about the mitochondrial DNA is consistent with what she has always been saying and it is perfectly consistent with her theory of sasquatch having only a minor contribution from modern humans.  I don't remember her speculating how much modern human was in the nuclear DNA.  The mtDNA is essentially irrelevant to how "human" something is besides it having to be close enough to mate.

 

 

 

I essentially agree with this BobZ, except for the bolded part, as in the same vein as it being preposterous for a lemur to mate with a human, what mates with a human must also be, or at least in the same genus.

 

This is how she could say they are a people.