Ketchum DNA report revisited

[norseman]

With Fox news clips like above? I think your failing. Without a doubt Melba Ketchum used Matilda to promote herself and as proof of her forest people interactions.

 

How is Standing any more of a "proven" hoaxer!?

 

My momma always had a saying....

 

"You can lock up a thief....but you cannot lock up a liar"

[Twist]

I’ve always heard the saying,  lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  Kinda related to Ketchum I think.....

[hiflier]

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

Without a doubt Melba Ketchum used Matilda to promote herself and as proof of her forest people interactions

 

Norseman, you cannot prove that Dr. Ketchum knew that Matilda was the hoax that it's purported to be.

 

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

How is Standing any more of a "proven" hoaxer!?

 

If he's not a 'proven' hoaxer then you can't put him in the line up. Ketchum isn't a proven hoaxer so you shouldn't put her in the line up at all.

 

And BTW, your momma said it correctly.

.

5 minutes ago, Twist said:

I’ve always heard the saying,  lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  Kinda related to Ketchum I think.....

 

And kinda uncalled for, Twist.

 

Prove Dr. Ketchum was a hoaxer and I'll agree with you though, and be the first to tell you I was wrong.

Edited October 24, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The bottom line is that the nDNA sequences couldn’t have come from a “Sasquatch”, as it would be biologically impossible. You don’t need more than a rudimentary understanding of generics to understand this. Ketchum certainly knew this, which is why I consider it to be good evidence that it was a scam.

 

Add to this her conversation with Smeja, the Sally Ramy incident, Matilda’s DNA, her not releasing more than 1% of the data, not giving Derek Randles his sample back, and her claim that she was raped by a Bigfoot while having numerous interactions with them.

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

The bottom line is that the nDNA sequences couldn’t have come from a “Sasquatch”, as it would be biologically impossible. You don’t need more than a rudimentary understanding of generics to understand this. Ketchum certainly knew this, which is why I consider it to be good evidence that it was a scam

 

Here, spend some time with this. All of it: http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_18.html

[Yuchi1]

H,

 

The naysayers have the pulpit but their homilies are bereft of factual evidence. This type of behavior is why (IMO) Sasquatchery is still stuck in 1968.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Yuchi1

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Reviewer:

 

The bioinformatics should include gene sequences from expected outlier species that may also be capable of contributing contaminating nucleic acids. For example, a BLASTN search using Sample 26 does turn up some exceptionally strong homology with a gene from Ursus americanus (DQ240386.1). This would support the idea that the consensus sequence may have been affected by contaminant sequences.

 

Melba’s Response:

 

There will always be some homology with other species when short random sequences are chosen, however, your example of bear contamination can be completely ruled out considering none of the laboratories handling the samples have bear samples.  

 

My Response:

 

She’s dismissing the reality that there were contaminant sequences involved. The fact that they were in there can’t be disputed, as many have checked it and gotten the same results, along with other species that shouldn’t be in there. The fact that she denies it serves an indication that she’s not being honest

[norseman]

Man Bear Pig...... not her fault!!!

[Incorrigible1]

2 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

H,

 

The naysayers have the pulpit but their homilies are bereft of factual evidence. This type of behavior is why (IMO) Sasquatchery is still stuck in 1968.

Your opinion is stated, yet you choose (or cannot) post any factual evidence to back it. Where's the meat?

[Yuchi1]

^^^ Ah, the old (Clintonian) diversionary tactic of trying to place the burden of proof on the other side. It's the accusers that have such a burden so not even close to a "nice try", and you know full and well that to be the case.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Yuchi1

[hiflier]

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/p/ketchum-dna-study-sample-26.html

 

Justin Smeja sent a small piece of this sample to the Ketchum DNA Study that was ongoing at the time of the incident. (Figure 1).

• Dr. Ketchum wanted to make sure this sample was from a Bigfoot and not a known animal so she had the flesh analyzed by Douglas G. Toler, MD, F.C.A.P. of the Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Huguley Pathology Consultants, P.A. 11803 S. Freeway Ft. Worth, TX 76115. Dr. Toler determined that the skin was not human and that the tissue was not contaminated with bacteria or fungus. If the skin was from a bear or other known animal Dr. Toler would have made that identification. He did not. (Attachment 1).
• Dr. Ketchum also removed several hairs with follicles from Sample 26 and sent it to Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas, TX) for analysis. The hair was determined not to be human or any other known animal. The hair was consistent with the Bigfoot control sample and determined to be from a Bigfoot.
• Hair Samples were also sent to Patrick W. Wojtkiewicz of the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory, Shreveport, LA or DNA extraction and sequencing. The follicles were processed for DNA using a robotic extraction process to ensure no human contamination. mtDNA and nuDNA were successfully extracted and sequenced. The DNA from the hair follicles that were extracted robotically and at this independent facility matched the core sample DNA processed by Dr. Ketchum.
•  Dr. Ketchum removed a core sample from the flesh to ensure no contamination. This sample contained a high quality DNA that yielded both mtDNA and nuDNA. The mtDNA was consistent with the finding of the other samples in the study with the same unexplainable anomalies found in the other 111 samples. The nuDNA did not match any DNA in the Genbank Genome Database but was consistent with the other two samples in the study that yielded a complete Genome. (Samples 31 and 140). The results were added to the study before submission to the Journal Nature for Peer Review.

 

This doesn't read that she intentionally mislead anyone. Key word here is INTENTIONALLY. Of course no one can, or is willing to, make that distinction still. Nope. Slam her all the way just like always.

Edited October 25, 2017 by hiflier

[Mendoza]

To me, the truth is that the whole Ketchum affair was a classic case of garbage in, garbage out, bad science.  It wasn't an intentionally dishonest scam, just a methodologically incompetent, fantasy-driven embarrassment.

 

For a while now, I've been noticing that the overall Bigfoot community seems to suffer from fad-like phases of differing points of attention or emphasis.  For instance, the Glickman report represents the height (or last throes?) of data-driven, analysis-based investigation of the Bigfoot phenomenon.  Shortly after its publication, and coincident with the rise of the BFRO, there was a shift to "fieldwork."  The result was a sort of "citizen science" trend that, while well-intended, often manifested as troops of clueless amateurs trampling through the woods on glorified camping trips, spooking every bit of wildlife within miles.  After that, there was a tendency to "NativeAmericanize" everything about the phenomenon.  The height of this phase was Davis' twin "Digger Indian" and "massacre" interpretations of the Patterson-Gimlin film.  While it is certainly valuable to acknowledge and benefit from the fact that Native Americans have been encountering Bigfoot for far longer than European-Americans have, the "NativeAmericanization" fad largely ignored the nature of folklore and its mythical aspects in favor of taking every legend at face value.  In recent years, the focus has once again shifted in such a way that many "experiencers" have been permitted to set themselves up as self-proclaimed unassailable authority figures on the realities of the Bigfoot phenomenon, with much in common with the "contactee" movement in Ufology decades earlier.  I hope I am right in perceiving this fad as trailing off lately.  In my opinion, little of scientific value has been accomplished in the Bigfoot field since the early 2000s when this meandering among the pursuit of less scientific emphases really took over the community.

 

Which brings me back to Ketchum.  Ketchum emerged more or less at the transition point from the tail end of the "NativeAmericanization" fad to the initiation of the current "experiencer"/habituation fad.  Her history in the field strongly suggests that she had already reached her "conclusion," inspired by Native American "maiden snatching" tales, before she ever obtained her first DNA sample.  Then, working in conjunction with some of the most pathetically disreputable habituation claimants and other people of questionable integrity, she collected a set of samples of such poor quality and such dubious provenance that they could prove absolutely nothing or absolutely anything, depending on the agenda of the one doing the analysis.  With these in hand, she unsurprisingly drew her "conclusion," really just a reiteration of her premise, that Bigfoot was a hybrid between Homo sapiens and another hominid species, resulting from interbreeding that was strongly implied to have been forced.  Garbage in, garbage out.

 

It was junk, it should have been expected to be junk from the beginning, and it's time for the Bigfoot community to move on.  More fruitful avenues await us.