The Ketchum Report

[ShadowBorn]

next generation sequencing

"The term DNA sequencing refers to sequencing methods for determining the order of the nucleotide bases—adenine, guanine, cytosine, and..."

Realy do not know how to explain this in laymans .But that is a definition of next generation sequencing so the question should be does anyone know what this means in laymans? DNA is just that proof of a living organism.Just like many have said already.

This type of proof should go a long way as well as inventing primers to solve this question whether these creatures exist.Patents should be filed and have even more creditabilty to solving whether these creatures exist or not. As it stands they have proof of something living now that should not exist but does in our forest.

In my humble opionion this is good news for us who have actually seen these creatures and were told that they were crazy. So it does not matter if it gets peer reviewed or not. What this tells me is that they now have a way to prove a encounter by giving DNA to be analyze.Good news either way no matter what the outcome will be.

[Guest]

"The one person that was able to unlock the safe to understanding bigfoot DNA, Dr. Melba Ketchum. Where every other scientist gave up and claimed contamination, Dr. Ketchum continued to move forward. Where every other scientist was unable to turn the corner, Dr. Ketchum did." - David Paulides

“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples..." –MK

I also read, but can't now find that Ketchum had to invent new "primers" just for sas DNA.

Does anyone know what "next generation sequencing" means?

If "next generation" translates to "not yet validated by mainstream science" then her methods may be what has prevented the peer reviews here.

This is my prediction:

Mainstream science will reject these findings. Footers who agree with her findings will stick with conspiracy theories and bring up "confirmed DNA" as a "fact" during arguments about BFF - skeptics will continue denying that DNA exists and many a thread will de-rail. Footers who lean toward the "Wood-ape" definition will be "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" and try to avoid this study as much as possible without directly refuting it. The ape vs. human factions will find some way to reconcile the issue. The status quo won't significantly change. Footers vs. skeptics will still make the board go round.

I agree with this almost 100%. That's what I'm expecting to happen, but, I still have hope.

[Guest]

And that has WHAT to do with what Mulder was saying to ME?

It's the same answer I planned to give you, worded a bit differently.

[Guest]

At least we can finally be done with this soon. Shove it all down the rabbit hole and bury it.

[Guest]

I don't have to. It's the responsibility of those presenting evidence to do it correctly. There still has to be a chain of custody with clearly recorded evidence that can be verified to have been the source.

So a report comes back "unknown primate". That's great. Now, where is the base comparison from which to validate "what" a sasquatch "is"? There is none. You have unknown DNA. Unknown doesn't = bigfoot. It may be primate, but prove "what" that primate is. Saying, "Trust me" doesn't get a free pass.

Anyone who might say it does, is the one moving the goalpost.

AAAAANNNDDD here we go again. You wanted evidence. It was presented. You wanted HARD evidence. Now we may have that. But you want MORE...and more...and more...and more...

We're already at a 250 yard football field? how long does it need to be before you're satisfied? 1000 yards? 5000? 40 miles? A light year?

Why don't you just admit you will never accept BF and be done with it....

The status quo won't significantly change. Footers vs. skeptics will still make the board go round.

Only because the Skeptics will, as usual, have about as much integrity as Richard Nixon.

But we shouldn't be surprised...all the poo-flinging, the belittling, the psuedo-skeptical double talk, moved goal posts and even outright hoaxing on the part of Skeptics has in my mind pretty much ended any credibility I ever gave them.

I can number the count of true skeptics on this forum one one hand with fingers left over. The rest are in reality as phony as many of them allege this study to be.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

Oh Mulder such a good soldier. Too bad there is no evidence.

[ShadowBorn]

So a report comes back "unknown primate". That's great. Now, where is the base comparison from which to validate "what" a sasquatch "is"? There is none. You have unknown DNA. Unknown doesn't = bigfoot. It may be primate, but prove "what" that primate is. Saying, "Trust me" doesn't get a free pass.

Guy the only primate part about this DNA is the human part.They have no idea what The other part of the DNA is.They have no where to compare this DNA that is not human in a data base.This unkown now has to be added to the data base so that others can compare this DNA with other DNA.The problem i believe is this newly created primers they had to use to come to this conclusion.No wonder that so many were discounting Bigfoot DNA as human and the would be tossed out as inconclusive. It must of took great effort to not stop and solve this.I just believe that it is great news no matter what the outcome is.We now have a way to compare and that makes it great news for alot of people who have seen these creatures.

[Guest]

@ Rockiesquatching: Forensically typed hairs, tracks with distinct biometrics mapping to a natural distribution curve in sizes, photo/video, and plenty of eyewitness accounts crossing centuries in time that paint a consistent, reliable picture of appearance, behavior, etc.

All evidence.

Your evidence that every last bit of that is worthless?

ZIP.

Skeptic fail, fall down, go BOOOM!

Edited November 26, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest DWA]

Here is what I want to know. Where is the response from the Big guys of the Bigfoot world. Mostly silence, and not much negativity that I am aware of. Is everyone waiting with bated breath?

Or maybe waiting for Sykes to rescue them ; )

Cervelo, I am not looking at that Groundhogs day video again, lol!

The big guys are quiet for a good reason, I believe. They don't see anything but a claim, and no body nor body parts. Just DNA sequences with no referent, which can give no better than "primate, unknown," which we have seen before. And they don't want to get into a big brouhaha for what they likely think will be a finding that doesn't move the needle to proof.

I will give skeptics of bigfoot credit for one thing, they are very apt at getting under the skin of those who believe.

You know why? It's that "believe" thing. The bigfoot skeptics don't have the ammo to confront the scientific proponents, who are in command of the evidence, so they go for the soft underbelly. It's easy to upset people who don't know enough about the topic to either tell the skeptics they're ignorant or to explain reasonably why something like this isn't proven yet.

OK, I'll agree that the DNA is known. However - as I said in an earlier post - science seems to fill in the gaps, coming to grandeose conclusions that are accepted as fact and promoted as such by science. It appears that if you find DNA without a type specimen, all you need to do is name it and proceed to conclude whatever you'd like from a minimum amount of evidence.

The Denisova DNA was extracted from a pinky finger, molar and a toe bone. Yet from this, we're supposed to believe that we can know where the creature came from, when it migrated, what it looked like, etc. This is the problem I have with this type of science, but at least in the case of Denisova we at least have a few fragments. To conclude that the unknown Bigfoot DNA is proof that a discovery of the animal's lineage has been determined is nonsense without finding - and thus presenting - the type specimen or a fragment thereof to compare it to.

Scientists found a few bones from Denisova. Look at what's been speculated from those few bones. If science did this with those few bone fragments, isn't it fair to assume that they'll do the same with this unknown paternal DNA?

Yes, and they will be doing it on less evidence. We always give paleontology leeway to speculate, as we know we are never seeing one of those alive, so might as well get all the fun out of it we can.

I understand people wanting to get excited about "something", but unless the study is holding out and hiding a piece of physical evidence with a proper chain of custody verifying the physical evidence matches the results of the DNA testing, you still have "unKNOWN" whether it's primate or "horse" in nature.

All the wishing in the world doesn't turn "verified unknown primate" into "bigfoot"... unless you've got one laying around you're not telling someone about.

Bingo.

Whether you believe or disbelieve in the existence of bigfoot, I think many here are underestimating one major primate sitting in the middle of the room. Science (thanks to Mulder? who distinguishes between big "S" Science, and little "s" science) has a major vested interest in this project to FAIL. For nearly 50 years they have done nothing but ridicule, deride, and scoff at anyone or anything that had a whiff of "Bigfoot" attached to it. They have successfully created an environment wherein society, led by the media, paints anyone who is even open to the concept of bigfoot as a loon, regardless if they are Dr. Meldrum, Janice Carter, or anything in between. I know I have never seen or heard a report from the media that didn't have a wink or smirk attached to the subject. The fact is, the establishment will never be happy about having egg on their face nor having to eat crow as many of the proponents of the creatures existence think they will have to do upon release of this paper. So what will they do? They will ignore it.

Of course they can verify a previously unknown homin based on a fossilized toenail...as long as it hadn't been the specific object of their vociferous ridicule for 50 years. In order to "keep face" they can't reverse themselves now unless an irrefutable piece of evidence is thrown before them. In other words, a body, dead or alive. DNA study by a scientist who even entertains the idea of bigfoot enough to take samples for a study, much less one who claims to have a family of them on her ranch braiding horse hair? Forget it. The establishment will be able to find a hundred excuses to negate and downplay this study regardless of how much care and objectivity was employed in its creation. Regardless of how or when the report is generated, it will be buried and forgotten except among the believers. THE ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR IT and thus they won't unless TBRC or whomever trots out a live or dead specimen in the press which embarrasses them into recanting their position.

The establishment won't dis this because they are pissed off. They will dis this because the one thing they require to determine an extant species - a type specimen - is not being presented. You need to do it for a new mouse lemur. You better bet you are gonna need to do it for bigfoot. Science will have enormous egg on its face when the type specimen is presented. But it isn't, yet.

DITTO! How is it you can say it and not get slammed, but I do?

Simple, Big G. Since they found out that you neanderthalensis women fellled mammoths with spears alongside the men, they realize they have to act more aggressively toward you to save their sorry skins.

[wiiawiwb]

Oh Mulder such a good soldier. Too bad there is no evidence.

There's no evidence? Huh? That can't be an honest question.

[Bill]

Anybody want to guess what you are looking at in the image below?

Reason I ask is that I’ve been following this discussion for the last few days and I think a lot of people have lost their perspective on the matter. I see people microscopically picking apart every word of the news announcements, and every word written by other posters here (and “thereâ€, the snake pit) and I’d simply like to offer a comment of how it looks to me.

Now I’ve been in the bull’s eye myself from time to time, for my work on the PGF, and I’ve seen people both enthused and supportive of my effort, and people bitterly and insultingly critical of my work put every word I’ve posted under a microscope and taken things way out of context, and lose sight of what I really meant by my remarks. When I review what others were saying, both pro and con, and referencing back to what I really meant, I see how easily it is for people to lose sight of the real essence of a discussion by microscopically examining words and phrases. Plus the fact that behind the scenes, there were often issues or factors I couldn’t disclose publicly when I wanted to (for any number of legitimate reasons), and those things the public forum wasn’t privy to, those things did in fact impact significantly on my own actions, words and choices. I also saw people trying to second guess my intentions and being so wildly off target that their guesses were hilarious if not absurd. So this is a comment from somebody who’s “been there, done thatâ€, been under that microscope.

What I’ve learned over the last five years is that nothing related to the analysis of the PGF or the mystery of bigfoot goes smoothly. Doesn’t matter if we try to make it goes smoothly, doesn’t matter if our intentions are really pure and doesn’t matter how qualified we may be in some endeavor, things just don’t go smoothly. I’ve had more curveballs thrown at me than I could have ever imagined or anticipated in my own work, and had to take some long and convoluted detours away from my chosen path just to try and make progress, and so I can easily see or envision that this DNA project has similarly been a rocky road for the people involved.

I don’t know the principles personally, Burtsev, Ketchum, Paulides, Carpenter, etc. so this is not an appraisal of anyone’s character, neither an endorsement nor a criticism. But there seems to be quite a few players in this matter and simple odds are somebody among them actually has a sense of personal integrity and isn’t looking to rush into a self-destructive reputation-ruining fiasco, especially where there doesn’t seem to be any big cash cow on the horizon worth selling out for.

But these people have collectively gone out on quite a limb, with what’s been released, and if it is all just a big con, then it’s a real personal integrity crusher when the jig is up. So while I watch and wonder how it’ll all play out, I just can’t see this many people committing integrity suicide in a collective effort. One, maybe, two maybe, but this many, I just doubt it.

So maybe it really is just a matter that things just aren’t going according to plan, and people are improvising (maybe some with good intent, maybe some without) and it just plain isn’t going smoothly toward the apparent goal. Maybe words are chosen poorly, or chosen with misunderstanding of the semantic implications of those chosen words.

So if I may offer my suggestion, maybe we need to kind of step back and try to see the big picture, and not the microscopic bits and pieces like that image I posted above.

To me, the most impressive thing so far is the screen print offered by member Obsi Post 8891 page 297, showing that apparently some kind of media/press embargo is in fact in effect, and that to me means the matter is potentially both serious and has some merit of legitimacy. But it’s obviously not going smoothly for the principles and (having been there and done that) I would think that we should cut them some slack and see what happens when that embargo is lifted on Tuesday. Then let the real serious discussions begin.

Let’s take a few steps back and try to see the big picture, instead of this microscopic examination of words or phrases or mini-facts. The big picture is worth discussing. The microscopic examination is just a bunch of lines and spaces, and not really worth much, because the final release will likely reveal something far different than what is being contemplated now, making most of this discussion a moot point.

My suggestion. Just wanted to offer it up for consideration.

Bill

[Guest]

Jreff is about as full of crap as any other board I have been to, just a bunch of rabid Skeptic wannabes cussing and scoffing everything under the sun with a few very well educated and reasonable minds going to and fro tbh. And you are exactly on, the results will stand for themselves, if Ketchum is a crack pot and did a poor job she will be torn apart, ruined, and bigfootery will take its biggest blow yet. If she nails it, it will be the biggest discovery in decades or centuries depending on the field of study. No in between, she either nails it or makes a fool of it all.

I agree

For how long she has been doing DNA, she knows what she is doing, people make it sound like this is her first crack at sequencing DNA, And that could not be any further from the truth. She is obviously very intelligent, she knows the ramifications if she is wrong. To have all the people involved that she has,

she has to be more than confident that her Data is correct, or she would never even chance submitting it.

[Guest]

Mulder, The thread is about the Ketchum Report. Where is that evidence ? Have you seen it? If not then it is just a claim, not evidence.

Edited November 26, 2012 by rockiessquatching

[Guest]

Bill, excellent point. Obsi, 12 posts and that one is on an info embargo until 11-27, Missed that. Nice catch, obsi! What does that mean and where was that information coming from? I can't read that small print, lol.

Edited November 26, 2012 by madison5716

[Guest]

This post is in regards to Next generation sequencing . In laymans terms , it refers to new technology which has allowed sequencing of very large stretches of DNA done in relatively short time periods at a greatly reduced cost . What used to take weeks or months can now be completed in a day and for far less cost . It is NOT a type of technology that is unaccepted by the scientific community . We wrote a grant last month that proposed to use this method as part of the project we were requesting funds for. The grant was submitted to NIH and we would not have included anything questionable in an NIH grant app.