The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

So does anybody have a guess on haplogroup they belong to? I belong to H1 and I am curious as to which one they fall under.

[Guest slimwitless]

I would recommend it, mostly because there is a clue why she would be interested in the nuDNA from the very start, and because there is some backstory about the area I collected my sample in the book. Lots of testimony about peoples sightings also.

It just made my Christmas list. My wife rolled her eyes. So what, I says.

When this paper comes out, does anyone see a potential problem with a lot of highly technical information being argued by mostly unqualified folks. Bob Z.... don't get very far away you always make it understandable.

You know, I've already seen journalists and scientists mischaracterize what little we do know; imagine what's going to happen when things get complex.

[Guest mitchw]

I can't be the only one who is only slightly more interested in The Big Guy/Gal than in the human comedy surrounding the phenomenon. Our competition for attention is remarkable. Can someone explain why MK was ineluctably forced to respond to Burtsev's outburst? Did this 'Cosa Nostra' need to go so public?

[Guest]

.

I can't believe a newsite actually posted this article. It's like witnessing an adult throw a condescending tantrum in public.

Here is the response I just posted to Mr Hartley's website:

If you're going to write a journalistic article, it behooves you to actually engage in a little journalism BEFORE you do so. If you HAD, you would know:

Dr Ketchum DID in fact send samples to other labs "blind". Many different labs in fact. All proper laboratory protocols, including tests for contamination, were followed.

The study is currently UNDERGOING peer review

The BBB rating is based on ~15 reports , most of them from a couple of years ago, ALL of them involved issues concerning timely receipt of results, NOT the quality of the labwork.

(By the way, you should really check into the BBB sometime, where you'd learn all about their status as a "pay to play" scam. This has been well documented by investigative sources.)

I dion't know why the Aspen Times published your so-called "article". Any journalism professor in the nation would have F-graded it without a second thought.

You have to go here to comment on the "article":

http://zerobudget.ne...=2586#more-2586

I also sent this to the Letters to the Editor department:

In redgards to Tom Harley's article "Todd Hartley: I'm With Stupid

Of bigfoots (bigfeet?) and backyard blueberry bagels", I fail to see how that article meets even a minimal standard where journalism is concerned.

Not only is the article little more than a snarking, biased rant, it contains several errors of fact that could have been easily avoided if Mr Hartley had bothered to do even a minimum of research.

Among those errors are the claim that Dr Ketchum didn't submit "blind" samples to independent labs (she did), and that she has refused to submit her paper for peer review (it is currently in review).

Also, Hartley makes much fuss about DNA Diagnostics' "F" rating from the BBB. If he'd bothered to check further, he would have seen that the rating stems from less than 20 reports (out of many 1000s of tests they've run), and concerned timely return of reports, NOT faults in the quality of the lab work performed.

(We'll leave aside the fact that the BBB is a scam in any event, as has been documented elsewhere.)

Shame on Hartley for writing an article that would not even pass in a high-school journalism class. Shame on The Aspen Times for publishing it.

To let the Aspen Times know how you feel about Hartley's hack job, go here:

http://apps.aspentimes.com/utils/forms/index.php?formId=lettertoeditor

Edited December 1, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest Loonsquatch]

Almost 18 months, 344 pages, and over 10,000 posts since this thread started. That is a mind boggling amount of time and energy exerted by a whole lot of people for what?

Please carry on folks.

Loonsquatch

[Guest slimwitless]

I can't be the only one who is only slightly more interested in The Big Guy/Gal than in the human comedy surrounding the phenomenon. Our competition for attention is remarkable. Can someone explain why MK was ineluctably forced to respond to Burtsev's outburst? Did this 'Cosa Nostra' need to go so public?

I don't think there's any way to know. I do find the timing of Paulides post and Ketchum's immediate response so soon after Burstev's "leak" interesting. Maybe a "gag order" was lifted.

Almost 18 months, 344 pages, and over 10,000 posts since this thread started. That is a mind boggling amount of time and energy exerted by a whole lot of people for what?

Tell me about it. I haven't slept in 1 year, 4 months and 28 days.

Seriously though, it's a discussion forum. People discuss things that interest them. It's all the rage on the Internets. I'm guessing you would have serious issues with Facebook and Twitter.

Edited December 1, 2012 by slimwitless

[Guest]

So I have a question for the "knowers" out there. Do any of you still doubt that this is the proof we have all been waiting?

The reason I ask is because Im a "believer", and this easily has to be the most excited/confident I've ever been that the truth is on its way out. If someone has physically seen a sasquatch, how could they possibly not believe this is legit? Surely you have to believe its possible to use DNA to prove its existence? Why fabricate this incredibly elaborate hoax, when she has the ability to actually and the intelligence to do what she says she did, which is create unique primers and test the samples.

This has garnered widespread media attention like I've never personally seen before, and thats because we've never had someone with Ketchum's title and credentials ever claim to have the rock solid proof that she does. IIf she wasnt collaborating with other DNA labs, and straight up lying about a team of scientists working with her, then she would have been exposed by now as a fraud.

There is a scientific paper out there which proves bigfoots existence. That much Im sure of (although admittedly im gullible by nature). What I dont know at this point is whether they'll let Ketchum imply that its Bigfoot, or they'll demand she change it to unknown species and muddy the water for everyone.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Samsquanch85

[Guest Loonsquatch]

Excellent guess - no time for those either. At one time, I too spent countless hours on this forum reading, believing, just sure that the proof would come any day. I read about members who lived among them (saw them with cougar stoles on their neck) and could produce undeniable proof any time, but wouldn't. I read about people sneaking into their nests to film from only a few feet away, but we never saw the film. I got really excited when I read that there had been an alleged shooting of two of them and the people who were there were posting openly here about the event. Nothing to this day has come of it. I've read analysis of the PGF ad-nausium. I was interested and believed through all of it. Then one day it hit me - this will go on forever because of belief and hope, not reality. I check in about every 6 months just to remind myself that my jolt into reality was right on. If there is ever a day I log on here and see actual proof, or see it elsewhere, I'll be sure to come with hat in hand to admit I was wrong.

I believed as strongly as the rest of you for a very long time (except for those of you who have allegedly seen it yourself). Loved to talk about it around the camp with my brother and buddies. Just can't do it any more.

As you were.

Loonsquatch

[Sasfooty]

So I have a question for the "knowers" out there. Do any of you still doubt that this is the proof we have all been waiting?

I don't doubt it because I saw the individual that left the hair at the spot where I found it.

I don't think I would have doubted even if I didn't have a sample in the study.

[NathanFooter]

Samsquanch85 I think that the Ketchum study is legit but the leaked info and the public response to the leaked info may be a wall that stops this dead in its tracks. I am 50/50 on it going through but hope with every fiber of my being that it gets published and if it does, this may be the greatest dicovery of the century.

[Guest]

I have a question for the "knowers" out there. Do any of you still doubt that this is the proof we have all been waiting?

I am 95% certain it exists. I have no clue what it actually is and I hope Dr. Ketchum has the goods to prove it.

[Guest slimwitless]

I believed as strongly as the rest of you for a very long time (except for those of you who have allegedly seen it yourself). Loved to talk about it around the camp with my brother and buddies. Just can't do it any more.

I consider myself agnostic on the subject. Someone here called themselves a "skeptical proponent". I like that. I also agree with Jane Goodall's comment, "I want them to be real". If I had to bet my life savings at this point, it'd be a tough call (and only because of what's going on). I'd probably beg for a few more weeks to consider. I will say if Ketchum and Sykes come up empty-handed, I'll likely consider the phenomena inexplicable and move on. After all, if DNA Diagnostics, Oxford, Animal Planet, the Olympic Project, NABs, Jeff Meldrum and Justin Smeja can't solve this mystery, who can? There aren't many trees where I live.

[Guest]

I don't doubt it because I saw the individual that left the hair at the spot where I found it.

I don't think I would have doubted even if I didn't have a sample in the study.

Exactly my point. There's no way this lady is behind one of the most elaborate hoaxes of all time, especially considering her credentials and the numerous samples provided by individuals like yourself. I have no sample. no sighting, but Im convinced this is legit.

Samsquanch85 I think that the Ketchum study is legit but the leaked info and the public response to the leaked info may be a wall that stops this dead in its tracks. I am 50/50 on it going through but hope with every fiber of my being that it gets published and if it does, this may be the greatest dicovery of the century.

Very true, but the results will be published somewhere at some point, whether its reputable or not. If she has three genomes sequenced, then thats 100% proof of an unknown creature. Thats what I dont get, DNA is proof, and it cannot be hoaxed. People can argue where it came from, but the answer will be overwhelming obvious to anyone with common sense.

[Guest]

Very true, but the results will be published somewhere at some point, whether its reputable or not. If she has three genomes sequenced, then thats 100% proof of an unknown creature. Thats what I dont get, DNA is proof, and it cannot be hoaxed. People can argue where it came from, but the answer will be overwhelming obvious to anyone with common sense.

The problem is, "Obvious to anyone with common sense" does NOT make it a scientific reality. At the end of the day, THAT is the standard we must use...The same one that explains gravity, evolution, and that, yes, we actually landed men on the Moon.

Having been reading and researching for over a decade, I will NOT be surprised if, even if the data is good, there is still a lot of resistance to the idea of sasquatch. I think that may have to do with our atavistic fear of other apes, as much as anything else. I think MANY people will be looking for any excuse to continue to deny sasquatch as a real animal.

I have never seen one. I have been told compelling stories by witnesses I trust. When asked to explain my position, I tell folks I don't 'believe' in sasquatch, but I believe there is compelling evidence of its existence.

[ThePhaige]

So I have a question for the "knowers" out there. Do any of you still doubt that this is the proof we have all been waiting

I am 100% on existence, 85% that Dr Ketchums DNA work relates directly to the species that I encountered. The only question I have is if there are sub species, which I also believe there are. Probably 3 to 4 in my best guess.

So heres a question I have been wrestling with, if the progenitor/donors DNA coupled with a human female produced Sas what would have kept the blood lines(genetic material) from diluting into even further half bred selections? As an example: Father(unknown) mates with human female, she gives birth to twins(hypothetically)...a male and a female which are hybrids or perhaps a better term is mixed race. Now the female hybrid grows and mates with a fully on pre-hybrid human male and so on and so forth. Would the line become diluted and eventually dissipate into a slightly less and less noticeable from the original progenitor/s?

Another question, What would have caused the hybrid Sasquatch race to go into a solitary existence and live relatively separate from and with a clean blood(DNA) line from humans(of today) for I'm assuming many hundreds if not thousands of years? Could something have occurred to separate us or them from further meandering genetically?

I have my theories but I'm curious what others think