The Ketchum Report

[Guest slimwitless]

I think Slim is making a joke because of the rumors that Smeja is interested in selling the steak.

It's called the poor man's trademark...at least that's what I'm calling it. I also mailed a copy to myself (although I've been told to expect delays).

No matter, It means I'm expecting a cut (literally and/or figuratively).

[Guest parnassus]

And you're entitled to it, good sir.

Edited to add: The last thing I want to do is make another member feel attacked. If I crossed the line in any way, I apologize to Parn and the community. I thought I was being funny, but I've been known to fail at my attempts many times before.

I have been known to fail at humor as well.

[southernyahoo]

@Southern Yahoo...great question! Scientific method require repeatability, the experimental design, if anyone employs, should give similar results.

My post in the Lindsay thread about a professional society of researchers brings that up - there is no classic, traditional peer-review for our work as yet... (and so many opportunities for us to set minimum standards on say even video submissions, like an affidavit, a full list of those present, and so forth!)

Biologists, etc today have very specialized and defined areas of inquiry..they aren't walking around looking at everything wondering if it is Sas...

It is a problem (leaving genetics aside as that is an area that lends to repeatability in results..) she had to be proving something.. and there is a bit of vacuum between the collection provenance and the PCR testing...

So, I tired to change my hypothesis as time/knowledge increased. At first it was...is there something in the forest making these anomalies...and the answer was yes,

then it was, what is it, and the answer was genus Homo..and then it was...are they smart? And many experiments aimed at that.

All the while trying to keep a background of remote video/sound/tracking etc...just getting my feet on the ground...and getting enough to bring a true anthropologist out...I failed there...as yet anyway.

And finally it was...can we meet? We came close! It may still happen, I however am broke, and depressed by lack of real venues to put research in...(and you all know the YouTube problem...and coolness too).....

So, ideally when I finish writing up..one could take any of the three of four working hypothesis and repeat results....not worrying about proving...(I think it will take more than one video, one paper, or 2 bodies)....the hurdles, the Myth, the consequences so big...

as a result of that approach I feel confident saying they can detect IR light, and a few other things... but, importantly, I hope someone can go out and do similar activities and get similar data.. and then what have I proved...LOL - that that experimental method arrives at those results...

not sure why it double posted..had to edit to remove..

but while here, sound analysis....how can I get any expert in birds to identify a mimicked bird call anything but that bird? Even if it's behavior is wrong, (and data on that for three years) has no spouses or fledglings, can never get an ID on, and so forth...without some clear frequency shift or something..it must become a Bird given BF's do not exist.... and so on.

So, coming up with a testable hypothesis there is tough...and my sound analysis skills infant...

and what about woodknocking - I can share a file with Cornell...they are all stumped...but so?

I got to a point where I thought perhaps it is better they are never "proved" - it seems it won't be up to me..so if they must be proved, then we need a way to communicate more reliably with the world...a society of research (not a club like we have now..about 15 clubs!) that allows anyone to submit and get objective review and a "nod."

okay..pipe dream I am sure, b/c I don't see myself doing all that unloved work! Who would, as we are all just part-time volunteers....?

Great post apehuman, I think we've covered alot of the same ground. I think as feild researchers , our first priority is to develope a functional methodology in the collection of data. (read get good at finding them) Then, process the data and correlate it to eyewitness observations.

On the subject of sounds, I think we have to let the mimicked owl calls go if there really is no distinguishing characteristic to them. BF is likely to have his more species specific calls for certain purposes, and those will be useful. If we are dealing with a hominid, then Cornell won't be the ones that should analyse the vocalizations, it will be specialists in the feild of phonetics. The human vocal tract can produce acoustics that simply aren't found in native north amercan wildlife vocals. The trick ofcoarse is to record those close and clearly.

The work that Dr. Ketchum is doing will "if successful" open the door to the types of analysis that the rest of the evidence needs.

[Guest]

My apologies for going off topic but who in the world trademarked "Sierra Steak"? If this was mentioned somewhere on the BFF I must have missed it.

Thanks for the clarification. I must have been tired last night when I posted.

[Guest Stubstad]

Slim,

I know you have read Stubstad's stuff. That is modern human DNA. Even he kind of admits it.

You can't make a silk purse out of a SNP or a coincidental similarity between specimens. And yet, to use your expression, I don't see any onslaught so far regarding that, do you? except coming from me. I assume that other similar results will be published somewhere (not in a worthwhile journal), and I bet there will be no onslaught then either. Rather, people (eg Mulder) who believe in credentials over quality, and in the existence of bigfoot as a flesh and blood animal (with the consensus characteristics*) will start citing it as proof of bigfoot! Even Meldrum, Mr. North American Ape, has started distancing himself from the consensus characteristics and the "ape" word. We already know that the leading entrepreneurs are on board...you know who those are, I assume. "Bigfoot is Human" is the new mantra. Whatever differences there are between Sasquatch and SweetSusieQ (they will claim) will be found in better understanding of DNA. In other words, (like always) it's the fault of Science that we haven't figured it out. Meanwhile Science will politely stifle a yawn (maybe indulge in an eyeroll) and go about their business.

I could be wrong; my crystal ball has only 4mb of RAM.

*(8 feet tall, 400 lbs, bipedal and quadripedal, runs 30 mph, midtarsal break, freaky foot dimensions, can detect and avoid cameras and guns, no fire or tools or clothing, no known shelters, twists trees, abducts and carries humans for miles, catches deer, throws rocks, hollers, is nocturnal, eats anything, has glowing/reflective eyes, no neck, non modern human body proportions, stinks to high heaven, etc etc).

OK, folks, I suppose I should weigh in here with a few tidbits: I have ONLY stated that the mitochondrial DNA on three samples (which I brilliantly numbered 1, 2 and 3)indicated "within human ranges". Two were at the extreme left-hand side of the very broadly defined "human range", and the third one was at the extreme right-hand side of these infamous human ranges. There was a fourth sample, but for that one I only have access to the MC1R nuclear DNA data (from a single gene). I also have the nuclear DNA MC1R data for Samples 1 and 2, but not 3.

Having said all this, I will say too that I'm as good as certain (say, >90% certain) that all four samples came from real extant sasquatch--not only based on the DNA obtained, but many other pieces of evidence, such as "kick-butt" video footage associated with two of these four samples, and other pieces of very persuasive evidence associated with all four samples.

Since the mitochondrial says absolutely nothing about the creature's current status as a hominid or hominin or even "modern human", we need the nuclear DNA (which is hundreds or thousands of times more extensive) to arrive at any conclusions as to which taxonomic classification the sasquathc belongs. All we can say about the mito results (whole genome) is that they were: 1) within human ranges--but just barely; 2) the results were "strange" to say the least; very unusual or "rare" in terms of GenBank; and 3) the mito sequences reflected the basic mitochondrial DNA pattern of a particular female from at least 15,000 years ago, and in one case more than 50,000 years ago. I wouldn't read more about the current type of species or subspecies until their CURRENT DNA profile is tested--meaning the nuclear DNA, not the "basic" DNA of some female Homo-this-or-that from tens of thousands of years ago.

Even more interesting is the single gene results from the nuclear DNA profile, which reflect the MC1R sequence of the very creature from which this DNA was derived. All three of the test results were NOT WITHIN HUMAN RANGES as these exist in GenBank. The polymorphic sites (or mutation sites) for all three of these samples were different than ANY known polymorphic site for modern humans; they were also different than the particular polymorphic site that has been identified by the Max Planck Institute for Neanderthal. While I understand the purported sasquatch polymorphic sites (there were two: one that prevailed in Samples 2 and 4, and a different one in Sample 1), are also not found in the Denisovan sequence for the same gene, I cannot find any data to support this claim.

As far as Ketchum's rejection (excuse me, return of manuscript) from Nature, the premier journal in the world for studies such as this, I am truly disappointed but still not surprised. For a submission of lessor importance but equally interesting concerning the Denisovan study, I once again refer to this paper as the way to go with the sasquatch: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Press_files/2010_Nature_Denisova_Genome.pdf.

This paper is excellent & so thorough that only a fool would reject the results--of a NEW hominin (meaning a human or the predecessors of modern humans, and possibly the sasquatch). There are something like 28 co-authors from a half-dozen countries or more, all of whom are highly qualified in their own fields of expertise and many of whom check one-another, not only for the DNA test results (both mitochondrial and nuclear) but for the interpretation of these results as well. My advice to Ketchum is this: the ground-breaking sasquatch paper will have to AT LEAST meet this standard of care & credibility. Get together with some of these true experts (not me, but maybe the geneticists you "fired", much to her chagrin) shown in this particular paper and WORK TOGETHER WITH OTHERS on this very important project. Otherwise, you (Melba) may end up with a non-peer reviewed paper at worst, which will be controversial to say the least, and may in fact hurt us more than it helps us.

If you had done this right, Melba, as I suggested way back when, you WOULD have been published in Nature, just like the Denisovan find was and just as we had planned to do in the fall of 2010. So--don't be greedy--share the data & the excellent work you have done with others, be open to a multitude of interpretations of these data without prejudice, and you'll be good to go.

God bless.

Richard

Edited December 7, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest mxav]

OK, folks, I suppose I should weigh in here with a few tidbits: I have ONLY stated that the mitochondrial DNA on three samples (which I brilliantly numbers 1, 2 and 3)indicated "within human ranges". Two were at the extreme left-hand side of the very broadly defined "human ranges", and the third one was at the extreme right-hand side of these infamous human ranges. There was a fourth sample, but for that one I only have access to the MC1R nuclear DNA data (from a single gene). I also have the nuclear DNA data for Samples 1 and 2, but not 3.

Having said all this, I will say too that I'm as good as certain (say, >90% certain) that all four samples came from real extant sasquatch--not only based on the DNA obtained, but many other pieces of evidence, such as "kick-butt" video footage associated with two of these four samples, and other pieces of pretty persuasive evidence associated with all four samples.

Since the mitochondrial says absolutely nothing about the creature's current status as a hominid or hominin or even "modern human", we need the nuclear DNA (which is hundreds or thousands of times more extensive) to arrive at any conclusions. All we can say about the mito results (whole genome) is that they were: 1) within human ranges--but just barely; 2) the results were "strange" to say the least; very unusual or "rare" in terms of GenBank; and 3) the mito sequences reflected the basic mitochondrial DNA pattern of a particular female from at least 15,000 years ago, and in one case more than 50,000 years ago. I wouldn't read more about the current type of species or subspecies until their CURRENT DNA profile is tested--meaning the nuclear DNA, not the "basic" DNA of some female Homo-this-or-that from tens of thousands of years ago.

Even more interesting is the single gene results from the nuclear DNA profile, which reflect the MC1R sequence of the very creature from which the DNA was derived. All three of the test results were NOT WITHIN HUMAN RANGES as these exist in GenBank. The polymorphic sites (or mutation sites) for all three of these samples were different than ANY polymorphic site for modern humans; they were also different than the particular polymorphic site that has been identified by the Max Planck Institute for Neanderthal. While I understand the purported sasquatch polymorphic sites (there were two: one that existed in Samples 2 and 4, and a different one in Sample 1) are also not found in the Densiovan sequence for the same gene, I cannot find any data to support this claim.

As far as Ketchum's rejection (excuse me, return of manuscript) from Nature, the premier journal in the world for studies such as this, I am truly disappointed but still not surprised. For a submission of lessor importance but equally interesting concerning the Densiovan study, I once again refer to this paper as the way to go with the sasquatch: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Press_files/2010_Nature_Denisova_Genome.pdf.

This paper is excellent & so thorough that only a fool would reject the results--of a NEW hominin (meaning a human or the predecessors of modern humans). There are something like 28 coauthors from a half-dozen countries or more, all of whom are highly qualified in their own fields of expertise and many of whom check one-another, not only for the DNA test results (both mitochondrial and nuclear) but for the interpretation of these results as well. My advice to Ketchum is this: the ground-breaking sasquatch paper will have to AT LEAST meet this standard of care & credibility. Get together with some of these true experts (not me, but maybe the geneticists you "fired", much to her chagrin) shown in this particular paper and WORK TOGETHER WITH OTHERS on this very important project. Otherwise, you (Melba) will end up with a non-peer reviewed paper at worst, which will be controversial to say the least, and may in fact hurt us more than it helps us.

If you had done this right, Melba, as I suggested way back when, you WOULD have been published in Nature, just like the Denisovan find was and just as we had planned to do in the fall of 2010. So--don't be greedy--share the data & the excellent work you have done with others, be open to a multitude of interpretations of these data without prejudice, and you'll be good to go.

Richard

rumor mill places you in association with Mr. Lidsay, is this true?

[bipedalist]

Interesting sentiments but water over the dam. I believe I will now wait for another shot at publication be it peer-review or not.

There are still samples out there and you could proceed with the approach espoused Richard, what happened to that?

[Guest]

Interesting sentiments but water over the dam. I believe I will now wait for another shot at publication be it peer-review or not.

There are still samples out there and you could proceed with the approach espoused Richard, what happened to that?

It seems if this one study gets any traction the kind of involvement needed, as Stubstad describes, will more than likely be forthcoming? If it doesn't or is late...any study that goes ahead w/o something quite material (or HD vid) to associate the sample with the subject would probably remain a questioned study until yet another...and so on?

[bipedalist]

Yah, but Stubstad implied in earlier posts he was making the contacts to go his own with Paabo and such at Max Planck Institute and or others as I remember the thread discussion going.

[Guest Jodie]

He did Bipedalist, but also said fairly recently that his plans were delayed.

Richard, I don't even know why I'm asking this, but I'm going to ask anyway. I guess I'll just have another marble rolling around in my head if you choose to answer.

If the MC1R gene polymorphisms did not resemble a human's, what primate or creature did it best match?

[Guest parnassus]

OK, folks, I suppose I should weigh in here with a few tidbits: I have ONLY stated that the mitochondrial DNA on three samples (which I brilliantly numbered 1, 2 and 3)indicated "within human ranges". Two were at the extreme left-hand side of the very broadly defined "human range", and the third one was at the extreme right-hand side of these infamous human ranges. There was a fourth sample, but for that one I only have access to the MC1R nuclear DNA data (from a single gene). I also have the nuclear DNA MC1R data for Samples 1 and 2, but not 3.

Having said all this, I will say too that I'm as good as certain (say, >90% certain) that all four samples came from real extant sasquatch--not only based on the DNA obtained, but many other pieces of evidence, such as "kick-butt" video footage associated with two of these four samples, and other pieces of very persuasive evidence associated with all four samples.

Since the mitochondrial says absolutely nothing about the creature's current status as a hominid or hominin or even "modern human", we need the nuclear DNA (which is hundreds or thousands of times more extensive) to arrive at any conclusions as to which taxonomic classification the sasquathc belongs. All we can say about the mito results (whole genome) is that they were: 1) within human ranges--but just barely; 2) the results were "strange" to say the least; very unusual or "rare" in terms of GenBank; and 3) the mito sequences reflected the basic mitochondrial DNA pattern of a particular female from at least 15,000 years ago, and in one case more than 50,000 years ago. I wouldn't read more about the current type of species or subspecies until their CURRENT DNA profile is tested--meaning the nuclear DNA, not the "basic" DNA of some female Homo-this-or-that from tens of thousands of years ago.

Even more interesting is the single gene results from the nuclear DNA profile, which reflect the MC1R sequence of the very creature from which this DNA was derived. All three of the test results were NOT WITHIN HUMAN RANGES as these exist in GenBank. The polymorphic sites (or mutation sites) for all three of these samples were different than ANY known polymorphic site for modern humans; they were also different than the particular polymorphic site that has been identified by the Max Planck Institute for Neanderthal. While I understand the purported sasquatch polymorphic sites (there were two: one that prevailed in Samples 2 and 4, and a different one in Sample 1), are also not found in the Denisovan sequence for the same gene, I cannot find any data to support this claim.

As far as Ketchum's rejection (excuse me, return of manuscript) from Nature, the premier journal in the world for studies such as this, I am truly disappointed but still not surprised. For a submission of lessor importance but equally interesting concerning the Denisovan study, I once again refer to this paper as the way to go with the sasquatch: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Press_files/2010_Nature_Denisova_Genome.pdf.

This paper is excellent & so thorough that only a fool would reject the results--of a NEW hominin (meaning a human or the predecessors of modern humans, and possibly the sasquatch). There are something like 28 co-authors from a half-dozen countries or more, all of whom are highly qualified in their own fields of expertise and many of whom check one-another, not only for the DNA test results (both mitochondrial and nuclear) but for the interpretation of these results as well. My advice to Ketchum is this: the ground-breaking sasquatch paper will have to AT LEAST meet this standard of care & credibility. Get together with some of these true experts (not me, but maybe the geneticists you "fired", much to her chagrin) shown in this particular paper and WORK TOGETHER WITH OTHERS on this very important project. Otherwise, you (Melba) may end up with a non-peer reviewed paper at worst, which will be controversial to say the least, and may in fact hurt us more than it helps us.

If you had done this right, Melba, as I suggested way back when, you WOULD have been published in Nature, just like the Denisovan find was and just as we had planned to do in the fall of 2010. So--don't be greedy--share the data & the excellent work you have done with others, be open to a multitude of interpretations of these data without prejudice, and you'll be good to go.

God bless.

Richard

Richard,

Thanks for the info.

I tend to agree with your admonitions to Dr. Ketchum; however, I must say that your concepts of the significance of SNPs, of the contents of GenBank, and of modern human mtDNA, and your ideas about hybrids could also use some "collaboration." If she shares these concepts I doubt very much that she has what she (and you) thinks she has, as far as evidence (or a viable paper) is concerned.

While I don't have much faith in him otherwise, I would suggest that when Moneymaker says "no testable hypothesis," that sounds like a quote. It may well be a real criticism of the paper. The hypothesis being: bigfoot and human DNA are indistinguishable. Now, that would be fine if you'd give up all these ideas about an 8 ft 500 lb monster covered with hair that runs 30 mph on two or four legs and enormous but inconsistent feet that have midtarsal breaks, eats pine bark, has glowing eyes, no neck, conical head, no fire, tools, clothing, blah blah. It would be fine if you were just saying that bigfoot is just a legend and a bunch of human hoaxers and mistaken identity. Then it would be modern human DNA from modern humans mistaken for/hoaxing bigfoot. Fine. But you're not. You have to have a bigfoot monster.

if the paper says, in effect: "here is all this modern human DNA, it's mostly all different, some of it wasn't in GenBank, we think it was a bunch of bigfoots because of that and because there were some people out there who collected the specimens who thought it was from bigfoot." Then, to my way of thinking, that would fit with the "no testable hypothesis" criticism. In the first place, GenBank doesn't have all the human SNPs. And more importantly: You can't test the hypothesis that bigfoot has modern human DNA (unless you have a bigfoot on a table or in a cage to verify that the specimen did come from a bigfoot).

To any reasonable person, modern human DNA comes from modern humans, and the phenotype of the bigfoot we all know and love is not a modern human. And you can't credibly assert that the DNA in your study, while apparently modern human, would yield important and consistent bigfoot differences from modern humans if only we, in the future, just look long and hard enough. Am I making myself clear? You can't just say red is blue, and exclude the usual ways of distinguishing red from blue because you don't think they are good enough, and substitute the judgment of a bunch of blind people for the usual tests of color. But that is what, it seems to me, you are asking reviewers to approve. You want the reviewers to believe that red is blue based on the speculations of a bigfoot believer who found a broken bloody pipe with a dead skunk nearby.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I obviously don't have all the data. You talk like you've read the paper. Show me where I'm wrong.

Edited December 7, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest]

. . . he thinks Dr. K isn't smart enough to know what she's dealing with which . . .

Folks like James Randi know a thing or two about fooling people, and Randi claims that the hypereducated are among the easiest to fool. Dr. Ketchum's susceptibility to a ruse could actually be positively correlated with her intelligence.

[Guest Jodie]

Or it could just mean she is in over head as far as skill level is concerned, I would think so if they required her to sequence the entire genome. I'm hoping the rumor is true that she referred the samples out for sequencing.

[Guest Stubstad]

He did Bipedalist, but also said fairly recently that his plans were delayed.

Richard, I don't even know why I'm asking this, but I'm going to ask anyway. I guess I'll just have another marble rolling around in my head if you choose to answer.

If the MC1R gene polymorphisms did not resemble a human's, what primate or creature did it best match?

Closest by far to modern humans and neanderthal. Modern humans also have a single polymorphism--several are documented--while sasquath doesn't have any of the human polymorphisms. Most of us have but one polymorphism, not two or three for this gene; these differ for different races or tribes, I would imagine. Neanderthal also appears to have but one, but a different one from modern humans. Neanderthal may have more; there isn't a whole lot of MC1R data on this hominin yet (difficult to extract nuclear DNA from old fossils). Sasquatch, based on three samples, already has two different polymorphic sites--both different from modern humans and Neanderthal (so far) alike.

By contrast, chimps have around 18 differences from either neanderthal or modern human. I would imagine this indicates a species split MUCH longer ago than either neanderthal or sasquatch (or Denisovan?).

Richard

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hi Richard

Can i ask why you are talking like Sasquatch has been proven to be the real deal ?

How in the world would anyone know what Sasquatch DNA is.

PS : this is not a wise guy question.

Thanks

Tim

Edited December 7, 2011 by RedRatSnake