The Ketchum Report

[JDL]

I think that there are an increasing number of parties out there who know the exact status of the Ketchum Report, its official anticipated publication date, and its content.

Hard to believe that Sykes would jump in with an accelerated approach if Ketchum had things sewn up in the short term. If Sykes, et al. have information regarding a rewrite, what is and is not covered in the Report, and an anticiated publication date, then they may have seen a window of opportunity to be the first to introduce the public to bigfoot as an extant species. They do seem to be in a bit of a hurry themselves.

The accelerated pace of the Sykes effort suggests four things to me.

1. The Sykes group may believe that the Ketchum Report is delayed just long enough to give them a window to be first.

2. There is substance to the Ketchum Report - in essence, it's worth scooping.

3. There are some gaps in the Ketchum Report that are worth filling through a second study.

4. That Sykes is going for an initial splash with some finite short term objectives, followed by a thorough gap-filling.

a. Prove that DNA of an undocumented species exists.

b. Prove that it is "bigfoot".

c. Sequence the entire genome in a longer term effort, focusing on any remaining gaps in the Ketchum Report.

Other parties also seem to be engaged in indicitive background activity.

We're already seated, but until the curtain rises, we've got to watch the stage hands.

[southernyahoo]

Well said, though I think 4. and 4. c. may be the aim of the reviewers and journal since the first to publish takes the brunt of the inititial skepticism and scrutiny. Significant gaps may not be allowed in the case of bigfoot.

[Guest slimwitless]

I do think it's likely Sykes knows more than he's letting on. Interestingly, someone claiming to be Rhettman Mullis (the guy behind Bigfootology, the group supposedly assisting Meldrum with sample collection for Sykes) posted the following on Lindsay's blog.

Correction: Meldrum did not interesting Sykes in doing this but Dr. Anna Nekaris approached Sykes last year with hybridization information. Meldrum is just a contributor of DNA samples, just like anyone else can be, as this is an open project.

If true, I wonder where Nekaris obtained information about "hybridization" last year.

[georgerm]

May 26, 2012

Up to date run down on the Ketchum project.

Last week researchers from Oxford University and the Lausanne Museum of Zoology announced that they are seeking genetic materials (hair, skin, blood samples, etc.) claimed to be of unknown animals such as Bigfoot. The goal of the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project is to catalog and identify new species, including those long believed to be mythical.

Despite the publicity that the new project is garnering, this is far from the first time that alleged Bigfoot samples have been subjected to scientific testing.

NEWS: New Bigfoot Sightings: Proof Still Lacking

In 2008, for example, the TV show "Destination Truth" recovered what was claimed to be a hair of a Yeti (formerly known as the Abominable Snowman). An analysis reportedly came back indicating that the sample contained "an unknown DNA sequence," though the full report was not made public and the results were never published in a journal -- as would be expected with a legitimate scientific discovery.

Then there was the strange case of a finger long claimed to be from a Yeti, once held in a monastery in Nepal, which was examined by researchers at the Edinburgh Zoo last year. DNA testing solved the decades-old mystery and debunked the Yeti finger; it was actually human, probably from a monk.

For over a year, Bigfoot buffs have followed the saga of Dr. Melba Ketchum, a veterinarian who claims to have definitive evidence of Bigfoot DNA. Ketchum says that her research will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal any time now and has released virtually no information about her allegedly world-shaking findings, reminding those who question her that "until it is published, I cannot discuss our data at all."

Last week in a May 18 Facebook post, Ketchum once again promised that definitive Bigfoot DNA results would be published soon, and "that all is well and things are happening as expected."

'Unknown' and 'Unidentified'

The most compelling evidence for Bigfoot would be DNA analyses, since they are scientific and theoretically definitive. However answers are not always possible; "unknown" or "unidentified" results do not mean "Bigfoot."

There are many reasons why a given hair or DNA sample might come back unknown, including that it was contaminated or too degraded by environmental conditions. Or it could simply mean that the animal it came from was not among the reference samples that the laboratory used for comparison. We have no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it to, so by definition there cannot be a "conclusive match."

NEWS: Bigfoot and Yeti DNA Study Gets Serious

In his book Big Footprints (Johnson Books, 1992), veteran researcher Grover Krantz discussed alleged Bigfoot hair, feces, skin scrapings and blood: "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made."

Indeed, 20 years later, the situation remains the same. When a definite conclusion has been reached through scientific analysis, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources -- "Bigfoot hair" turns out to be elk, bear or cow hair, for example, or "Bigfoot blood" is revealed to be a car's transmission fluid.

Krantz gave one typical example: "A large amount of what looks like hair has been recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to barbers. Most of these called it human; the Redkin Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab declared it a synthetic fiber.

A scientist at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then looked more closely and decided it was real hair of an unknown type... However final confirmation came when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The fiber was positively identified as artificial and its exact composition was determined: it is a product known commercially as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair."

The lesson? Even many of the world's top experts got it wrong; it was not human nor "unknown" but instead a synthetic fiber. Hair testing is far less of an exact science than genetics testing, and the fact that some alleged Bigfoot hairs remain “unidentified†is hardly surprising -- and certainly not mysterious.

For decades Bigfoot research has been plagued by false promises of definitive, earthshaking proof of Bigfoot -- most of it creates plenty of publicity and hype but no real results. Hopefully efforts by researchers like those with the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project and Melba Ketchum will be successful. However, they are only the latest in a long line of claimants -- all of whom have failed so far. Can they back up their claims with solid scientific evidence, or will they join the ignominious legions of hoaxers and sincere-but-deluded researchers? http://news.discovery.com/animals/bigfoot-beyond-footprints-120526.html

[Guest]

Interesting, It says you can patent a naturally occuring isolated gene, but are rarely awarded or upheld in courts. Obviously because it can hinder science and or diagnostics.

Look for that to change as the courts continue to turn more pro-corporate as has been the pattern for the last few years. Note the Federal reversal of parts of the claim dismissal.

[Guest gerrykleier]

I wonder if Ketchum's journal would drag their feet on OKing publication to let Sykes or someone else take the initial heat-then follow up with Ketchum's more comprehensive study. Usually you would want to be first, but with Bigfoot you never know how things might get turned around. Perhaps Syke's Academic credential will act as a shield for the Ketchum people. If his is a somewhat cursory study they may feel theirs trumps his and who has first publication date won't mean much. Especially since knowledge of Ketchum's work has been circulating for some time.

If not, they better build a fire under their rears or they are going to be an also ran!

GK

[southernyahoo]

Georgerm, that article is a regurgitation of "some" past efforts concerning hairs, fibers, and DNA, but I'm not seeing the update on Ketchum's study there.

[Guest]

Question: Has anyone else wondered why the media grabbed onto the Sykes DNA study but there is very little about Ketchum's DNA study other than on bigfoot blogs? Maybe I've just missed it. Just curious is all.

[Guest BFSleuth]

^ Because the university published a press release about the request for samples and the research time line.

In the case of Ketchum's efforts, without affiliation with a major university PR department, the mainstream media would be more hesitant to publish articles based on bigfoot forums, blogs, etc.

[Guest]

As I understand it, Skyes is an academic who regularly publishes in journals and lectures on dna and what not. Dr. Ketchum as I understand it is a practitioner. I think that gives Skyes more credibility. It shouldn't be that way but that is the way it is.,

[Guest BFSleuth]

There is no doubt that Dr. Sykes has a much better established reputation, as the lead author on ground breaking DNA research and popular books to his credit. He is well into his career, with his first major research published in 1989 of public note. He is also working almost purely on research as his career.

Dr. Ketchum by comparison is a contributing author for a few DNA studies but not a lead author and has primarily been owning and operating a DNA lab as her occupation. This will be her first publication as a lead author as far as I know.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Will Oxford get the proper DNA?

[Guest MikeG]

I can't imagine what improper DNA would be!!

Mike

[JDL]

Ketchum, et al. tried to fly under the radar to avoid pre-emptive resistance (not working out too well at this point, but it got them part way).

Sykes has a good reputation and track record, and he had enough "academic capital" to burn, so he fired off a flare with his press release.

We should also consider that the Denisova discovery and a couple of other things have slowly been prying open minds to additional possibilities.

Any serious researcher who has looked into Sykes' efforts at this point has come up with a hit or to on the Ketchum Study by now, so Sykes' exposure may benefit her to a certain degree.

[Incorrigible1]

I can't imagine what improper DNA would be!!

Mike

As you're aware, it's currently being discussed (and cussed) in the Tar Pit.