norseman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) I just sent off for my DNA kit, from ancestory.com My buddy and his wife did it, and they can tell you within one percent of which homo sapiens, where on earth you were spawned from. They also know Europeans and Asians have 1-4 % Homo Neanderthal DNA. They also know that specific Asians have 1-4% Denisovian DNA. And yet Mrs. Ketchum's DNA study reveals Sasquatch is modern human, except its a hybrid, with 50% of its DNA is crossed with man/bear/pig..... like 2000 years ago. It's goobliegawk. No serious geneticist in the scientific field has stood up and said "Hey this Dr. Ketchum is really on to something here!" No. And why is that!? I guess its because the government is silencing the truth right? It cannot be that Dr. Ketchum is a quack and is flinging poo at the wall hoping something will stick? Your right Southern Yahoo, DNA has the last word in science. But science also has the last word on DNA too Patty besides having large breasts looks masculine to you the same way a female gorilla looks masculine to you. Its a seperate primate species that has a more archaic morphology than modern humans do. Edited February 24, 2016 by norseman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) It is estimated that modern human language fitting the definition only arose in the last 50,000 years. A Bigfoot would be unlikely to speak human languages very well as it likely does not poses the anatomy required. If they did they would look fully like a modern human as this is when the ability arose. On the other hand it is not a restriction on intellectual symbolic processes. Before we got speech we had millions of years of tool making and 500,000 years of fire hearths starting with Homo Erectus. Art, speech, modern social complexity, all happened around the same time. The hip girdle is narrow front to back as opposed to wide from hip to hip so the birth canal would not be able to pass a modern human type brain. Another indication that the type is pre Homo Erectus and likely more of an Australopithecus type relative (cousin) Still many more times like us than a chimp or great ape. And we can teach these symbolic language to a certain point. So Sasquatch, if taught, may be able to understand a thousand or two symbolic language elements which would make some type of communication possible, more than with any other known species except perhaps a dolphin. Edited February 24, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I just sent off for my DNA kit, from ancestory.com My buddy and his wife did it, and they can tell you within one percent of which homo sapiens, where on earth you were spawned from. They also know Europeans and Asians have 1-4 % Homo Neanderthal DNA. They also know that specific Asians have 1-4% Denisovian DNA. And yet Mrs. Ketchum's DNA study reveals Sasquatch is modern human, except its a hybrid, with 50% of its DNA is crossed with man/bear/pig..... like 2000 years ago. It's goobliegawk. No serious geneticist in the scientific field has stood up and said "Hey this Dr. Ketchum is really on to something here!" No. And why is that!? I guess its because the government is silencing the truth right? It cannot be that Dr. Ketchum is a quack and is flinging poo at the wall hoping something will stick? Your right Southern Yahoo, DNA has the last word in science. But science also has the last word on DNA too Patty besides having large breasts looks masculine to you the same way a female gorilla looks masculine to you. Its a seperate primate species that has a more archaic morphology than modern humans do. You're always quick to confuse the nuclear genome results of three samples with the mtDNA results from over a hundred, most of which were outsourced sequencing by labs like which you will be sending yours to. And in case you didn't know, when they determine a haplogroup, as with my sample, they are determining the origins, which is exactly what Ketchums outsource labs did, specifically at Family Tree. https://www.familytreedna.com/ Will they let you send in a hair sample for testing? Or will it be a cheek swab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I dont know how the test will be sent in. But do you agree or disagree that Ketchum's paper is dead on arrival? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Dr. Ketchum postulated the DNA was human (matriarchal) & unknown (nuclear). Didn't that all get sorted out on last night's X Files episode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science The Paper Appears On February 12, 2013, Ketchum commented on social media outlets “Buckle up!†and the next day, the paper appeared along with a new press release.49 The study, “Novel North American HomiÂÂÂnins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies,†which analyzed DNA from a total of 111 high-quality samples submitted from across the continent, appeared in the inaugural issue of DeNovo: Journal of Science (http://www.denovojournal.com) of FebruÂary 13. The coauthors were: Ketchum, P.W. Wojtkiewicz, A.B. Watts, D.W. Spence, A.K. Holzenburg, D.G. Toler, T.M. Prychitko, F. Zhang, S. Bollinger, R. Shoulders, and R. Smith. The paper describes the conclusion stated earlier in the November pre-paper press release, that both the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA were sequenced. The mitochondrial DNA, inherited from the maternal side, was human. But the nuclear DNA was not. This consisted of a “structural mosaic†of “human and novel non-human DNA.†Upon attempting to access the paper the morning it appeared, I encountered the next huge misstep by Ketchum. The journal, DeNovo, is a brand-new online outlet that consists of one issue with only this one paper. The website is clunky and amateurishly designed with stock “sciencey†photos of animals and test tubes. A strangely placed “buy now†button was in the center yet on one page, the words “DeNovo – Open Access†floats in a blank box. For a moment, I did think the paper was freely available. Not so. Clicking on the buy now button, I was taken to a checkout page that charged $30 for access. Backing out of the site to look for other reactions, I noticed that several Bigfoot bloggers had already obtained complimentary copies or they had managed to download the paper for free care of a site glitch. I requested, through email to the address in the press release, a complimentary press copy as well. This inquiry went unanswered. I was provided two review versions of the paper later in the day via other means. Regarding the origins of DeNovo, Ketchum said on the day of the paper reÂlease that an unnamed journal had accepted the paper after peer review was completed, but their lawyers advised them not to publish due to the disreputable topic. Instead of continuing to shop the paper to other sources, she decided to acquire the rights to this unnamed journal,50 suspected to be the Journal of AdÂvanced MultiÂdisciplinary Exploration in Zoology. Looking into the history of that journal, investigators found it was registered under Ketchum’s name on January 9, 2013. This led to serious ethical questions about self-publishing.50 The DeNovo website was created on FebruÂary 4, 2013, just nine days prior to the release of the paper. Ketchum claims to have documentation of the prior reviews and from the acquisition of the new journal. These, and any information on which journals previously rejected the paper, have not yet been released. In the announcement of the paper,51 Ketchum mentioned two associated websites: the Sasquatch Genome Project and the Global Sasquatch Foundation. Both were produced with what appeared to be very basic web tools and hosted on low-volume servers. Both sites failed the first day possibly due to traffic. Prior to their inaccessibility, I captured some information published on them. On the Sasquatch Genome Project page, Ketchum denied she self-published and took a dig at the scientific community. “We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history,†she said, calling it the “Galileo Effect†and suggesting she was treated unfairly. Ketchum’s explanation for publishing in DeNovo was that she was eager to get the data out there and not have to deal with further rejections, hinting that all the previous reviewers were less than decent or open-minded seemingly because they rejected her work.50 On the Global Sasquatch Foundation site, this statement appeared: “Due to the efforts of our founder Dr. Melba Ketchum it has been proven that Sasquatch are a human hybrid. Here at G.S.F. we have made it a priority to protect these indigenous people from being hunted, harassed, or even killed.†One could assert that this statement was premature considering the scientific community had not assessed her conclusion. Regardless, she had extreme confidence in her results. The Foundation site also included pictures of stick structures supposedly constructed by the creatures and a photo of a matted horse’s mane, an example of what Ketchum has alleged is Sasquatch “braids†in the horse’s mane.50 As for the paper itself, it was incomprehensible to those without specialized training in genomics or forensics. It began with the premise that Sasquatch exists and this study helps to confirm that. Two days later, Ketchum announced through social media that (unnamed) “top level scientists†volunteered to assess her data. A few days after, a statement appeared on the DeNovo website from David H. Swenson, a biochemist, who said he reviewed the manuscript and agrees with the conclusions. This statement, as well as Ketchum’s own statements and those of her spokesperson were also riddled with grammatical and typographical errors.52 The few experienced geneticists who viewed the paper reported a dismal opinion of it noting it made little sense.53 The DNA sequences did indeed contain matches to human chromosome 11, a lot of undetermined DNA, and some that, in part, matched to other animals. Thus, the whole sequences do not resemble any known animal and are contradictory with evolutionary biology. In a curious sidenote, the term de novo is used in bioinformatics to designate the absence of a reference genome. Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology was used in this study to read the whole genome, a process that used to be far more time and labor-intensive. There are problems with NGS de novo protocols that can lead to poor data quality. We do not know if the results were properly evaluated prior to concluding that the genome data could be used and if the interpretation of the results is reasonable. These factors will likely come into play during the expert external reviews of the paper. Some critics have stated that the DNA may have been contaminated. Ketchum assures everyone that she fully accounted for contamination issues and dismisses this allegation, citing her own the lab’s experience with handling forensic crime samples. The samples have not been made available to others so there is currently no way for anyone to run a retest to compare results. There appear to be multiple places where the data quality could have been compromised, regardless of how confident Ketchum is in her results. The Circus That Followed Accompanying the official version of the paper was Erickson’s video, which supposedly showed a sleeping Sasquatch. The short clip, made public a day later, showed a brown, furry mass sleeping on a woodland floor. The Erickson project claimed that DNA was obtained from this individual, named Matilda, which was analyzed as part of the Ketchum study providing a link to a real creature. The promised high-definition video evidence was not made available. Within a week, researcher Bill Munns claimed that he had acquired still shots of Matilda whereby the face strongly resembled Chewbacca, a tall, hairy Bigfoot-esque creature from the Star Wars movies.54 If that wasn’t enough to increase the derision for Ketchum’s work, what may be the most humiliating find came from careful readers on a skeptical forum.55 Three of the references cited in the Ketchum paper as prior published research on the creatures were discovered to be questionable in validity. One was an openly-stated April Fools prank that concluded the Yeti was actually an ungulate (hoofed mammal) and that its resemblance to apes was due to convergent evolution. When confronted with this information, Ketchum denied responsibility, saying she was told to include “all†references by one reviewer. She did not concede that she knew they weren’t reputable scientific works. So what does Ketchum have? Is it human DNA with an undocumented variation? Is it animal samples contaminated with human DNA or vice versa? Is it a concocted hoax? Or is it actual unique DNA that may point to the existence of an unknown hominin (or two)? In a revealing interview on Coast to Coast AM she told the public she is not after glory, would rather avoid the publicity, and has turned down (others’) money-making offers. She admitted that she wouldn’t tackle this project if given another chance due to the trouble it created for her. She admits she was not privy to the culture of Sasquatchery that exists where many players try to either one-up or discredit the other person. She is solidly convinced that she has enough data to unquestionably make the case for the existence of Bigfoot even without a type specimen. In the Coast to Coast AM conversation, she likened them to “special forces soldiers†who cannot be seen unless they want to be. She has completely accepted that they exist across North America and wishes them to be protected as a tribe of people.4,50 Her research continues. In the presentation of this potentially earth-shaking discovery, Dr. Ketchum lost every shred of scientific credibility through her short-circuiting genetic experts and the process of peer review. Instead, she atÂtempted to appeal to the popular Bigfoot enthusiast crowd as their savior who has the goods. Even that backfired. She continues to make excuses instead of admitting her errors and poor judgment. She censors those who point out these serious problems or ask questions about them, and she has not exhibited cooperation with geneticists who are experts in human DNA. The people supporting her are not usually helpful to her cause. Her disclosures about her own personal sightings and obvious missteps in the process have done much to sabotage her own credibility. It’s not a pleasant picture. ========================================================= Melba Ketchum is a joke, her phony DNA study paper is a joke, her fake peer reviewed journal DeNovo is a joke, Matilda and the Erickson project is a joke, her DNA findings are a joke and do not follow reality. And finally? Anyone and everyone in the scientific community involved in Primate genetics thinks she is a joke. Did I miss anything? Can we stick a fork in this now? How is Ketchum any different than Todd Standing? Muppet head versus Chewie mask! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 IIRC, peer review was conducted in at least two instances with the reviewers backing away in denial there was such a thing as non-human DNA that could exist in conjunction with human DNA as they had no prior benchmarks for comparison. Some have surmised there are apparently those still of the opinion the earth is indeed, flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 No, there was no denial just rejection based on what she is claiming is impossible, as well as her data doesnt even support what she is claiming. She is a quack. I really really cannot believe you guys are still holding on to this. We were duped let it go! I remained optimistic for a long time too, but those days are long gone. She still has Matilda on the front page of her website. Bill Munns debunked it as a Star Wars Chewbacca mask!!! At least Todd Standings hoaxes were original! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 This is a strange statement. With no evolutionary biology, we are left with external forces manipulating genes. Any comments? The few experienced geneticists who viewed the paper reported a dismal opinion of it noting it made little sense.53 The DNA sequences did indeed contain matches to human chromosome 11, a lot of undetermined DNA, and some that, in part, matched to other animals. Thus, the whole sequences do not resemble any known animal and are contradictory with evolutionary biology. Did Ketchum fail since top geneticist ignored the paper and failed to help put the puzzle pieces together? If you can't get peers to review, then the science process breaks down. I hope that Melba makes another attempt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 There is no such thing as puggymonkeybaby!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ql7uY36-LwA The last sentence says it all...."contrary with evolutionary biology". Its plain ole shoddy work! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Random human contamination of animal samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Ding,ding,ding......we have a winner! With that said, we need to keep trying with DNA and not give up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 This is a strange statement. With no evolutionary biology, we are left with external forces manipulating genes. Any comments? The few experienced geneticists who viewed the paper reported a dismal opinion of it noting it made little sense.53 The DNA sequences did indeed contain matches to human chromosome 11, a lot of undetermined DNA, and some that, in part, matched to other animals. Thus, the whole sequences do not resemble any known animal and are contradictory with evolutionary biology. Did Ketchum fail since top geneticist ignored the paper and failed to help put the puzzle pieces together? If you can't get peers to review, then the science process breaks down. I hope that Melba makes another attempt. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest freelygiven Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Geez, norseman! If I'd waited for your treatise, I could have saved myself a lot of homework. First time on here I actually had some knowledge of the subject matter. Love your addressing Ketchum as "Mrs.." Along with some of the rest of the "news to me," I discovered she never completed her PhD. Makes it hard for a novice to take anything you read except with a grain of salt, especially if there's any truth to the sample from Smeja's freezer she supposedly identified as being from "bigfoot," according to my source. We know you can't say such things, even if it IS from bf. Nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Todd Disotell reviewed the paper.....and stated that the study was not worth the paper it was printed on. No scientific break down here. Its just that some people dont like the F the paper received, so that must mean conspiracy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts