The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

nice catch slim.

and the added haplotypes..as more data roles in, leads me to this question:

how many individual genomes are assembled for modern humans in GenBank? Wikipedia says over 100,000 species and the data is growing exponentially every 18months (when was that first guy's genome..?.)

.

And for Neanderthal.. we have one or two genomes? (sorry don't follow that closely), and also for Denislova two?(sp?) and we have some florensis (sp?) And, we don't have erectus genome correct?

my rough estimate of Genbank and also all the ancient migration and personal genome projects...is 500,000 individual human genomes, but really just a guess.

if we are looking at statistics w/o unique marker/gene for our BF's, then it seems almost any argument against identifying as BF will carry weight until a certain sample number of 6 billion people is achieved?? Perhaps too simplistic a view...?

p.s. another infantile question: I see both the personal Genome and Human Migration Projects (among some others) offer nuDNA testing for around $200 (vs. $100 for mtDNA) .. I assume a limited number of genes they consider relevant to their inquiry rather than doing an entire genome. But, I think I read now a genome can be done in like 30 hours...(or did I hear that on NPR?) anyway..correct that if I am wrong..how long an individual genome can be accomplished in...

but anyway... most require a saliva swab, but there might be room for variation...and I wonder why not just send in a purported BF DNA as human and just see what comes back?

Edited December 21, 2011 by apehuman

[southernyahoo]

Slim I'm not getting a direct link to the article.

I suspect though that if there are still some new haplogroups being discovered, this is a good thing, because thats just more humans to be exlcuded which shouldn't be a statisical hurdle for bigfoot.

[bipedalist]

...and I wonder why not just send in a purported BF DNA as human and just see what comes back?

Am I missing something: hasn't it already been on record in at least one thread that Dr. Ketchum used human primers to screen the samples which were then farmed out asking them to be definitive about the type of primate from there?

[Guest slimwitless]

Slim I'm not getting a direct link to the article.

I think the closest you can get without registering is the abstract.

I suspect though that if there are still some new haplogroups being discovered, this is a good thing, because thats just more humans to be exlcuded which shouldn't be a statisical hurdle for bigfoot.

I have reason to believe you know more than me so...right on!

[Guest]

Bipedalist- yes, thats the way I understood it also. However Dr. Ketchum had also needed to develop and patten her own workable primers to further process the studies. ptangier

[Guest Jodie]

It says the article was first published online Oct.24th, 2011, I wonder by who and where?

[Guest Dudlow]

Published online:

- Dudlow

Mitochondrial haplogroup C4c: A rare lineage entering America through the ice-free corridor? (pages 35–39)

Baharak Hooshiar Kashani, Ugo A. Perego, Anna Olivieri, Norman Angerhofer, Francesca Gandini, Valeria Carossa, Hovirag Lancioni, Ornella Semino, Scott R. Woodward, Alessandro Achilli and Antonio Torroni

Article first published online: 24 OCT 2011 | DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21614

Abstract

Full Article (HTML)

PDF(1099K)

References

Request Permissions

1. Baharak Hooshiar Kashani1,

2. Ugo A. Perego1,2,

3. Anna Olivieri1,

4. Norman Angerhofer2,

5. Francesca Gandini1,

6. Valeria Carossa1,

7. Hovirag Lancioni3,

8. Ornella Semino1,

9. Scott R. Woodward2,

10. Alessandro Achilli3,

11. Antonio Torroni1,*

Article first published online: 24 OCT 2011

DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21614

Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Author Information

1. 1

Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Pavia 27100, Italy

2. 2

Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, Salt Lake City, UT 84115

3. 3

[Guest]

Am I missing something: hasn't it already been on record in at least one thread that Dr. Ketchum used human primers to screen the samples which were then farmed out asking them to be definitive about the type of primate from there?

humm, not sure that is related to my general question.. perhaps too general for this thread, if so no worries.

[Guest mitchw]

The AJPA has told me via email that they do not have an embargo policy on papers. Since we are led to believe that Ketchum's group is being prevented from talking about their paper before its publication, it's unlikely the AJPA will be the journal. On the other hand, if AJPA is the journal where Ketchum's paper will be published, the paper can appear as an online publication at any time, without respect to a dead tree print.(this last bit appears on the AJPA website)

[Guest]

I'd give two of those bullet points weight in your modern human DNA argument (Paulides "human" rantings and the domain). Since Paulides rejects evolution, pretty much anything hominid has to be human. That domain registration I discovered could simply be an easy to digest URL (she also owns sasquatchgenome.com). I assume these things (if they exist) are indeed wild and arguably people if they are Homo. It suffices to say the nutshell defense of your theory has always been Stubstad's mtDNA.

snippage

she owns more than just sasquatchgenome.com, she owns 14 domain names.

sasquatchdna.com (but not bigdootdna.com, that's a researcher named Bob Schmalzbach)

yetigenome.com

sasquatchgenome.com

bigfootgenome.com

the other 10 are variations on these themes, starting with sasquatch or bigfoot (only one yeti) all registered under godaddy around the same time, and most updated on 12/18/2011 for some reason. Can't find what changed on 12/18/2011, but it's something on the backend, either DNS servers or registration information, address, name or phone numbers. They all point to standard parking web pages on godaddy's servers.

Interesting that she invested in 2 year registrations for 14 similar domain names last year. Also interesting that there's no webpage behind them, yet.

[Guest slimwitless]

I didn't know about yetigenome.com. Nice find. I wonder what other variations are out out there.

I'm pretty sure the Bob Schmalzbach domain dates to the failed LLC started by Ketchum, Stubstad and Schmalzbach.

[Guest slimwitless]

I used the search link from Analytical Biochemistry, the journal that published Ketchum's previous paper (incidentally I believe one of the co-authors is the geneticist no longer working on the Bigfoot project). I typed in every relevant term I could think of and came up with the following list:

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Journal of Human Evolution

The American Journal of Human Genetics

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology

Journal of Molecular Biology

Journal of Theoretical Biology (for parn)

Biophysical Journal

Journal of Archaeological Science

Obviously some are more germane than others. I also found some interesting nuggets like the following article: "Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch". It seems you have to pay to read it though.

Anyway, I believe Ketchum said she knew of a journal (or was it an editor) that might be more receptive to the subject. With that in mind, I thought the publisher of her previous paper might be a good place to start looking for clues.

[Guest RioBravo]

Obviously some are more germane than others. I also found some interesting nuggets like the following article: "Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch". It seems you have to pay to read it though.

Here's a short write-up on that article: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/02/the_real_truth_about_the_sasqu.php

[GuyInIndiana]

Interesting that she invested in 2 year registrations for 14 similar domain names last year. Also interesting that there's no webpage behind them, yet.

Doesn't really mean anything other than she 'hopes' or plans that something will materialize out of all her efforts and wanted to buy up domains before anyone else could own them. Buying domain names is simple and relatively cheap, so she was just covering her butt for future interests.

ETA: If there's a name you just REALLY have to have but someone else owns it, they'll often jack the price up so when someone desperate comes along wanting it, they'll make some bucks off it. There's LOTS of domain names out there that are owned but not in use, just for that very reason.

Edited December 21, 2011 by GuyInIndiana

[Guest]

she owns more than just sasquatchgenome.com, she owns 14 domain names.

sasquatchdna.com (but not bigdootdna.com, that's a researcher named Bob Schmalzbach)

yetigenome.com

sasquatchgenome.com

bigfootgenome.com

the other 10 are variations on these themes, starting with sasquatch or bigfoot (only one yeti) all registered under godaddy around the same time, and most updated on 12/18/2011 for some reason. Can't find what changed on 12/18/2011, but it's something on the backend, either DNS servers or registration information, address, name or phone numbers. They all point to standard parking web pages on godaddy's servers.

Interesting that she invested in 2 year registrations for 14 similar domain names last year. Also interesting that there's no webpage behind them, yet.

Not sure where i picked this up from, but from earlier discussions about MK's domain ownership, i came across this site - 'Sasquatch Genome Project' referenced under bigfootreferenceguide.com which appears to come under the NABS banner.

It appears all set up and ready for 'news'.