The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

A comment was made on Bigfootevidence.blogspot.com yesterday under the nuDNA Sierra Steak story and signed as J.Bindernagel, unlinked..so who knows for sure..

not sure if site guy can verify...but, it was short and sweet..

J Bindernagle said...

Many of us have waited a very long time for this and knew the day would come.

if, LOL, this is his comment, it says a very lot in few words.

So, if this must be revealed in such a fashion...perhaps it will be the cautionary tale to others...and we get our act together and come up with decent policy and so on....The really interesting, and potentially scary, story for me is our future reaction to "proof."

Don't wade away on me Parnassus, I understand the hurdles, etc.... but, for me, as I do know they are alive and well, I have greatly mixed emotions today (what's new?).

I hope we do better and more honorably than humans treat each other, or Bfers...!

I have personally been so conflicted about the future for BF's known or unknown..I guess I don't have to accept that responsibility...but, boy it weighs heavy anyway.

Edited December 9, 2011 by apehuman

[Guest slimwitless]

Here is an example of it taking 4 weeks to do the entire genome.

WARNING: Speculation Based On Idle Conjecture and Rumor

A little less than four weeks after I heard the rumor genome sequencing was set to commence, Dr. K posted on FB: "With the amount of data we have amassed, I am very optimistic that the outcome of the peer review will go well." She's been happily posting ever since. Who knows? Not me, sadly.

[Guest]

It is a matter of accepting for me, you have to admit some of the claims of what BF can do are pretty far fetched.

Running with cars on the highway, talking, avoiding trail cams

, etc, it's a lot to accept.

Tim~

As far as talking is concerned there could be a genetic precedent in a hominid or australopithecine bigfoot. Our genetic capacity for speech probably did not evolve all at once but slowly over hundreds of thousands of generations. Bigfoot may have branched off from our family tree after some but not all of the genetic coding for speech developed. Studies of modern apes demonstrate some capacity to understand speech and even use some forms of sign-language and "yerkish" (I think I spelled that correctly) which is a symbolic language used in linguistic research with chimpanzees. I bigfoot comes from somewhere between apes and modern humans then I suspect they may have an intermediate form of language ability.

I'm not sure I understand how a bigfoot can know to avoid technology although I suspect they are a very observant species and avoid anything that seems unusual to them. I am uncertain if that is really enough to avoid humans and our objects. Most apes are curious and so are humans. Evolving a tendency to avoid the novel doesn't sound much like a higher primate but could help to explain their avoidance of cameras or anything that smells remotely alien to their neighborhood.

Ant

[Guest Stubstad]

Stank

Stubstad is the only source of DNA data and he revealed modern human DNA. Paulides is very close to Ketchum and he says human. Ketchum says nothing. Some journal may have rejected it; that wouldn't happen if they had some novel DNA. Nothing seems to be happening. I'm betting on modern human; you may not think so... that is what makes horse races, as they say....

I have said several times that I think Ketchum made a mistake initially, perhaps misled by Stubstad and his "statistics." That doesn't require any hidden agenda or motivation. Sometimes it takes a while to admit to yourself that you went down the wrong path. Or maybe she hasn't yet. I don't have a crystal ball.

p.

I didn't say "human DNA" but rather "within human ranges" for the mitochondrial genome in all three cases. Still, the results were strange indeed, and all three pointed more towards stone-age human DNA rather than modern human (mito) DNA. And, no, my statistics were correct; probably a bit on the conservative side, after checking the entire GenBank data base. In other words, the close relationship of a relatively ancient source for Samples 1 and 2 were highly unlikely if these were merely "H-type" modern humans. These two were VERY close to the original "mito-Eve" who resided in sub-glacial Europe during the late Wisconsin glacial advance.

The nuclear DNA--one gene only--revealed NOT human DNA, not Neanderthal, and not chimp or other ape. All three test results (Sample 1,2 and 4) revealed a single unique polymorphism (or mutation). There were two different polymorphisms, one for Samples 2 and 4 and a different one for Sample 1--all unique. While it can be said that these are "between chimp or great ape and modern humans", all three were much closer to modern human than chimp. Between ALL modern humans and sasquatch (if that is what it was) the differences were 2 (out of about 1000 MC1R sequences), while for chimp the corresponding number is 17. Ditto for Neanderthal--only two sites were different.

However, there are thousands of additional genes I don't have a clue about; these may or may not push the envelop closer to the ape side, or not. If it is closer to great ape, as Lindsay suggests, I will be surprised, but still this is possible.

Again, we have precious little data; only Ketchum (so for) has these data. I personally believe her data are good, but her hypothesis is likely flawed, or at least cannot be "tested" through scientific means. Again, I would suggest to her and everyone else a much more broad-based scientific endeavor, with AT LEAST a dozen world-wide experts, each with their own area of expertise, to sort this one out.

Richard

Richard, in post #681 you wrote that we need the genome, and...'o far, we just don't know or even have a "working hypothesis". First, the data are needed.'

Is it the case that Wally Hersom is funding a genome study? Would it be correct to reason that he is doing this because the current DNA results justify the expense? (Note; I came to this question after reading Robert Lindsay's blog today)

I'm sure Wally Hersom is financing Ketchum; and he isn't a fool, to be sure. Previously, Erickson paid for the testing of at least one, probably more, complete nuclear genomes for his samples. Now that the two of them (Ketchum and Erickson) have mended ways, she has agreed to include his six samples in the study--all of which I understand were from real sasquatch (pl.).

Do the current cash layouts for the entire nuclear genome--of several samples as it turns out--justified? Definitely; that's the way Ketchum and I left it when we stopped working together. She's on to something now; it's merely her hypothesis that may be scientifically flawed. There are many ways to interpret DNA data; each and every stone should be turned and inspected thoroughly

This will take more than one or two researchers of stature. For the Denisovan genome, they had no less than 28 highly qualified researchers--and boy, did THEY do a job. Their paper was accepted by Nature Journal--even though various tidbits of information were released as the project continued for about a year in several institutions world-wide.

Richard

Edited December 9, 2011 by Stubstad

[Guest parnassus]

You realize this may be your petard that does you in, right? (Where's the Shakespeare emoticon?)

Mixing metaphors; I've been down a few blind alleys, enough to know. I'm not the one who's in one this time.

"The truth will out."

I didn't say "human DNA" but rather "within human ranges" for the mitochondrial genome in all three cases. Still, the results were strange indeed, and all three pointed more towards stone-age human DNA rather than modern human (mito) DNA. And, no, my statistics were correct; probably a bit on the conservative side, after checking the entire GenBank data base. In other words, the close relationship of a relatively ancient source for Samples 1 and 2 were highly unlikely if these were merely "H-type" modern humans. These two were VERY close to the original "mito-Eve" who resided in sub-glacial Europe during the late Wisconsin glacial advance.

The nuclear DNA--one gene only--revealed NOT human DNA, not Neanderthal, and not chimp or other ape. All three test results (Sample 1,2 and 4) revealed a single unique polymorphism (or mutation). There were two different polymorphisms, one for Samples 2 and 4 and a different one for Sample 1--all unique. While it can be said that these are "between chimp or great ape and modern humans", all three were much closer to modern human than chimp. Between ALL modern humans and sasquatch (if that is what it was) the differences were 2 (out of about 1000 MC1R sequences), while for chimp the corresponding number is 17. Ditto for Neanderthal--only two sites were different.

However, there are thousands of additional genes I don't have a clue about; these may or may not push the envelop closer to the ape side, or not. If it is closer to great ape, as Lindsay suggests, I will be surprised, but still this is possible.

Again, we have precious little data; only Ketchum (so for) has these data. I personally believe her data are good, but her hypothesis is likely flawed, or at least cannot be "tested" through scientific means. Again, I would suggest to her and everyone else a much more broad-based scientific endeavor, with AT LEAST a dozen world-wide experts, each with their own area of expertise, to sort this one out.

Richard

I'm sure Wally Hersom is financing Ketchum; and he isn't a fool, to be sure. Previously, Erickson paid for the testing of at least one, probably more, complete nuclear genomes for his samples. Now that the two of them (Ketchum and Erickson) have mended ways, she has agreed to include his six samples in the study--all of which I understand were from real sasquatch (pl.).

Do the current cash layouts for the entire nuclear genome--of several samples as it turns out--justified? Definitely; that's the way Ketchum and I left it when we stopped working together. She's on to something now; it's merely her hypothesis that may be scientifically flawed. There are many ways to interpret DNA data; each and every stone should be turned and inspected thoroughly

This will take more than one or two researchers of stature. For the Denisovan genome, they had no less than 28 highly qualified researchers--and boy, did THEY do a job. Their paper was accepted by Nature Journal--even though various tidbits of information were released as the project continued for about a year in several institutions world-wide.

Richard

Richard,

Thanks for the info.

Sure sounds like modern human DNA to me.

And the whole thing is starting to stink a little, I might add. Nothing against you. But it's starting to sound like almost every specimen was reportedly a bigfoot. Doesn't that bother you, that as hard to find as bigfoot is supposed to be, that all these samples are testing positive? Wouldn't you expect that most of them would be just garden variety animals and humans? Am I getting the wrong impression? Can you tell us what the approximate numbers are, how many "bigfoots" out of how many samples?

If Wally Hersom is no fool, then I'd think he'd be sending an independent expert down to Texas. Of course, mebbe that's just....me..... mebbe that wet on my leg IS just rain.....

Thanks,

p.

Edited December 9, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest vilnoori]

The only reason I brought up feral children was to illustrate that culture has much more to do with our humanity than genes do. Chimps are very close to us genetically and yet vive la difference. Here is more on feral children, and there are lots of interesting cases. Click on some of the reference links if you want to find more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

[Guest Jodie]

Richard, I think you are reading way too much into those polymorphisms. Of course, I understand that you are just stating your opinion on what you saw..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121034

[Guest Stubstad]

Mixing metaphors; I've been down a few blind alleys, enough to know. I'm not the one who's in one this time.

"The truth will out."

Richard,

Thanks for the info.

Sure sounds like modern human DNA to me.

And the whole thing is starting to stink a little, I might add. Nothing against you. But it's starting to sound like almost every specimen was reportedly a bigfoot. Doesn't that bother you, that as hard to find as bigfoot is supposed to be, that all these samples are testing positive? Wouldn't you expect that most of them would be just garden variety animals and humans? Am I getting the wrong impression? Can you tell us what the approximate numbers are, how many "bigfoots" out of how many samples?

If Wally Hersom is no fool, then I'd think he'd be sending an independent expert down to Texas. Of course, mebbe that's just....me..... mebbe that wet on my leg IS just rain.....

Thanks,

p.

I have only seen data from Samples 1, 2, 3 and 4. The three mito sequences could have been modern human, especially if one does not compare these three data sets with one-another and with those in GenBank (where there are over 7000 complete mito sequences, I understand). I think the odds of this are less than 3%, however, for the reasons I've given previously. Further, I think the odds of these sequences being either Neanderthal, Denisovan, or any "ape" are zero point zero zero. That leaves either sasquatch or some kind of previously uncatalogued feral human (feral meaning wild, not previously domesticated, as it were). This isn't proof; it is merely evidence--better than footprints with dermal ridges, video footage, and/or other circumstantial evidence--evidence that in a jury trial would prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" but not absolute proof.

The MC1R data was even more "non-human". Known humans simply do not have either of the polymorphisms or mutations we found, for all three samples. This does not mean there are NO modern humans on earth who may have either or both of these mutations--if so, they have not yet been identified.

All this (along with a great deal of other circumstantial evidence) leads me to believe that Samples 1, 2 and 3 were NOT derived from any modern human, whether through hoax or misidentification. I believe these three are all sasquatch, whatever the nature of the beast (or human of sorts) may be. I also believe that Sample 4 was from a sasquatch; but I'm certainly less certain of this one, because all I've seen is the MC1R data for it.

Richard

[Guest slimwitless]

Wouldn't you expect that most of them would be just garden variety animals and humans? Am I getting the wrong impression? Can you tell us what the approximate numbers are, how many "bigfoots" out of how many samples?

You raise an interesting point and one I've been pondering lately. Surely there are submitters who are not under NDA because their samples tested negative for "unknown primate". Has anyone heard a story like that? How about successful sample providers that were informed not all of their samples were squatchy? We've heard she rejected what she thought was a bear paw. Anything else?

Edited December 9, 2011 by slimwitless

[Guest parnassus]

Richard, I think you are reading way too much into those polymorphisms. Of course, I understand that you are just stating your opinion on what you saw..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21121034

yes; for instance, are these all bigfoots?:

We have identified seven novel SNP sites in the genomic sequence of the first 4 kb of the IL-10 promoter region 5' to the ATG start site from Caucasian individuals with either a high or a low IL-10 production phenotype. http://www.jimmunol.org/content/166/6/3915.short

​

​Sixteen percent of the study group had an APCR phenotype. Factor V Leiden (FVL), FV Cambridge, and haplotype (H) R2 alleles were identified in this group. Thirty-three SNPs; 9 silent SNPs and 24 missense SNPs, of which 20 SNPs were novel, were identified in the 5 APCR subjects. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/10/11

​

We identified 11 SNPs in the exonic region, including one novel SNP that was not previously reported. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20569184

​

Sequencing analyses of genomic DNA samples from a Chinese population identified four single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of the CRTH2 gene, encoding a chemoattractant receptor predominantly expressed on Th2 cells and a receptor for prostaglandin D2 (PGD2). Two coding-region SNPs with a T to G and a C to A substitutions, resulting in codon changes from Phe to Val and Pro to Thr, respectively. Two additional SNPs were discovered in the 3′ untranslated region (3′-UTR). These newly identified SNPs will be useful for further functional study of variant CRTH2 gene, and for genetic studies of asthma and other immunologic diseases.

http://www.nature.com/gene/journal/v3/n2/full/6363826a.html

Edited December 9, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest Dr. Boogie]

Viewing this as a layman with a scientific type mind. I think a lot depends upon the 'reverse engineering' possibilities that currently exist and how they relate to any presented 'Sasquatch' DNA.

As an example. what I mean is if I offer a witnessed sample of my own DNA ... could current technology recreate my likeness from that verified DNA sample via some kind of computer based, inorganic reverse engineering process? If the answer is no then it might be asking a bit much of a scientist to conclude that a particular DNA sample is from an animal that fits the large, hairy, humanoid concept most of us have of a Sasquatch.

The most you could expect is that they will acknowledge that such a sample is unusual or atypical but they currently (as far as I'm aware) have no way of recreating the appearance of the animal from the DNA sample. I think that the most we can expect would be a conclusion that the DNA warrants further investigation. Thinking aloud, one possibility , if the DNA appears to be close to human might be cloning using a higher primate host with the sample DNA injected into fertile cell?

The point I'm making is how could they conclude that an interesting or unusual sample(s) of DNA are from a creature fitting the accepted description of Bigfoot? As soon as you revert to linking the DNA samples with circumstantial evidence such as witness accounts and footprints you are back to the type of proof that has failed in the past.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

As far as talking is concerned there could be a genetic precedent in a hominid or australopithecine bigfoot. Our genetic capacity for speech probably did not evolve all at once but slowly over hundreds of thousands of generations. Bigfoot may have branched off from our family tree after some but not all of the genetic coding for speech developed. Studies of modern apes demonstrate some capacity to understand speech and even use some forms of sign-language and "yerkish" (I think I spelled that correctly) which is a symbolic language used in linguistic research with chimpanzees. I bigfoot comes from somewhere between apes and modern humans then I suspect they may have an intermediate form of language ability.

I'm not sure I understand how a bigfoot can know to avoid technology although I suspect they are a very observant species and avoid anything that seems unusual to them. I am uncertain if that is really enough to avoid humans and our objects. Most apes are curious and so are humans. Evolving a tendency to avoid the novel doesn't sound much like a higher primate but could help to explain their avoidance of cameras or anything that smells remotely alien to their neighborhood.

Ant

Hi

Please let's assume that BF is an Ape and not any sort of human, i say that cause for all the years i have been into this subject the majority of known researchers, PHD'S and enthusiasts have pretty much based this BF thing on it being Ape, it has only been recently or since this DNA thing started saying human, some all the sudden have switched to it being some sort of human, i am not so gullible so i'll stick to what it has been for the last 50 years, after all humans walk on two legs, apes are quads, and we all know BF has been seen on all fours running like hell.(that's if the reports are reliable)

Apes do not have a " larynx " so speech is out of the question, sounds and alike they can do but not talk.

Apes do not learn how to communicate like the BF have been said to do, Apes have to be taught to do that.

Onto the Cameras ~ simple one here, a lot of good hunters can take the smell out of a camera with today's new products, that leaves only so called micro waves and that is just an excuse for not getting a good or any BF picture, these waves don't seem to bother any other animals so why a BF.

I am just talking here and throwing out some stuff i have learned, i am not trying to be an expert in any way or pushy.

Tim ~

[Guest Jodie]

You are right Dr. Boogie, they can't. That's why they need some kind of body, body part that is undeniably not animal or human, or some really crystal clear video to go along with all of this, otherwise, the DNA results are just something unusual, maybe.

There must be more to it than what Richard knows, obviously, or no one would have gone through all of the expense, time, or trouble to do the sequencing, but based on the leaks so far, it just isn't really convincing to me.

Richard, did you by any chance run statistics on the likely hood that what you were seeing in the samples you worked with were possibly sequencing errors?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019143

Subsequently, it estimates the posterior error probability for each substitution through a Bayesian formula that integrates prior knowledge of the overall sequencing error probability and the estimated SNP rate with the results from the logistic regression model for the given substitutions. The estimated posterior SNP probability can be used to distinguish true SNPs from sequencing errors. Validation results show that Atlas-SNP2 achieves a false-positive rate of lower than 10%, with an approximately 5% or lower false-negative rate.

[bipedalist]

Subsequently, it estimates the posterior error probability for each substitution through a Bayesian formula that integrates prior knowledge of the overall sequencing error probability and the estimated SNP rate with the results from the logistic regression model for the given substitutions. The estimated posterior SNP probability can be used to distinguish true SNPs from sequencing errors. Validation results show that Atlas-SNP2 achieves a false-positive rate of lower than 10%, with an approximately 5% or lower false-negative rate.

Check,

[Guest parnassus]

Viewing this as a layman with a scientific type mind. I think a lot depends upon the 'reverse engineering' possibilities that currently exist and how they relate to any presented 'Sasquatch' DNA.

As an example. what I mean is if I offer a witnessed sample of my own DNA ... could current technology recreate my likeness from that verified DNA sample via some kind of computer based, inorganic reverse engineering process? If the answer is no then it might be asking a bit much of a scientist to conclude that a particular DNA sample is from an animal that fits the large, hairy, humanoid concept most of us have of a Sasquatch.

The most you could expect is that they will acknowledge that such a sample is unusual or atypical but they currently (as far as I'm aware) have no way of recreating the appearance of the animal from the DNA sample. I think that the most we can expect would be a conclusion that the DNA warrants further investigation. Thinking aloud, one possibility , if the DNA appears to be close to human might be cloning using a higher primate host with the sample DNA injected into fertile cell?

The point I'm making is how could they conclude that an interesting or unusual sample(s) of DNA are from a creature fitting the accepted description of Bigfoot? As soon as you revert to linking the DNA samples with circumstantial evidence such as witness accounts and footprints you are back to the type of proof that has failed in the past.

as I have implied elsewhere, DNA is a refuge for bigfoot believers because science doesnt know the biological meaning of most mutations/SNPs. When in my previous post I asked if these SNPs denoted bigfoot, I was predicting the believer's response, which would be "yes" or "we can't be sure, it's possible". I fully expect that believers will attempt to make modern human DNA into "bigfoot" DNA. The consensus characteristics of bigfoot (glowing eyes, 9 feet tall, abnormal proportions, 4-6 toes, non opposable thumb, midtarsal break, 4x4 mode, conical head, no tool use or fire) that have been compiled from reports over the years, but are incompatible with modern human, will be forgotten. "Bigfoot is Human!" will be the cry. "Bigfoot is hiding in the DNA." It would be nonsense, and to use the words of one of the famous posters here, "intellectually dishonest", but that's what will happen.

Science will find this utterly silly. I don't know what Meldrum will do....rewrite Legend Meets Science?

Edited December 10, 2011 by parnassus