The Ketchum Report

[BobbyO]

Bobby O., I went back a page and looked at your original question just to make sure what we were both talking about and I'm glad I did. Here's Tontar's words which prompted your original query and my response...

I was only answering in regards to the "steak" being from the adult male, which according to Smeja it probably is, but I missed Tontar saying "at the time of the shooting", which I think is what you are questioning.

So no, the "steak" wasn't taken at the time of the shooting and Bobo did not say that.

Sorry for the confusion.

So Tontar was wrong when he said that Bobo said that Smeja had " cut the steak off the leg of the adult male on site " ?

As Bobo didn't say that, right ?

[Rockape]

Yes Bobby O, the "at the time of the shooting part" by Tontar was wrong.

[Guest]

A couple of points, going back a few pages:

1) About Dr Ketchum's qualifications: Genetics is a single science. Practitioners may focus on animal or human genetics for academic or business reasons, but otherwise the proceedures, equipment, processes, etc are virtually the same. Any genetics lab can sequence either at will, and indeed Dr Ketchum's lab has done that in the past (9/11) victims).

2) About the bloody boots vs the "steak": while it may seem obvious that the boots should be tested, stop and consider that they're hunting boots. They've likely had a variety of blood types splashed on them, stepped in wearing them, etc. Blood is notoriously hard to get off once it comes in contact, so the liklihood of contamination is high. The "steak" is a better, cleaner source for a dna sample.

[Guest]

2) About the bloody boots vs the "steak": while it may seem obvious that the boots should be tested, stop and consider that they're hunting boots. They've likely had a variety of blood types splashed on them, stepped in wearing them, etc. Blood is notoriously hard to get off once it comes in contact, so the liklihood of contamination is high.

Agreed. Any hunting equipment (clothes, knives, shoes, etc.) has a high likelihood of contamination. I don't know of any sportsmen who have disposable, one time use equipment.

[BobbyO]

Yes Bobby O, the "at the time of the shooting part" by Tontar was wrong.

As was the " cut the steak off the leg " part also yeah, as that's the part within context of what Tontar's was asking about and insinuating there were different versions of the story intially ?

[Guest slimwitless]

About the bloody boots vs the "steak": while it may seem obvious that the boots should be tested, stop and consider that they're hunting boots. They've likely had a variety of blood types splashed on them, stepped in wearing them, etc. Blood is notoriously hard to get off once it comes in contact, so the liklihood of contamination is high. The "steak" is a better, cleaner source for a dna sample.

The "steak" is circumstantial evidence. If it ends up testing out as coyote or bear, it's still possible Justin Smeja is telling the truth. Obviously Ketchum thinks it's sasquatch and if she's right, then yes, it's the better sample of DNA (not to mention hair morphology, etc). However, if the flesh Justin found two weeks later is something else, the blood on the boots is the only physical evidence that can prove his story. Even as it stands, it's the only evidence that we know about that can tie him to the shooting.

[ThePhaige]

Why do I cringe every time I hear that term relating to tissue as "steak" ..heh

[Guest]

Agreed. Any hunting equipment (clothes, knives, shoes, etc.) has a high likelihood of contamination. I don't know of any sportsmen who have disposable, one time use equipment.

I think justin said they were new boots, it might be in the sierra kills a to z thread.

[BobZenor]

Hello Bob Zenor It's always great to hear from you !! As you know, I am not a scientist or even close - so can we break down a few things you said here? I just hope my questions do not sound to silly.

1. Can you explain the "Modern Human" usage? What is that exactly? Us?

2. Can you explain what "non modern human hominids" are?

3. You said,

Modern human by mitochondria means they share the same haplogroups since mitochondrial eve. It would be more complicated with nuDNA since modern humans share neanderthal and Denisovan. I suppose that would include any genes or sequences that have been found in modern humans.

All DNA that wasn't modern human found in a bigfoot would logically be considered hominid or more preferred hominin. That would be anything closer than a chimp by most common usage. Some include chimps and gorillas and even orangutan when using "hominid".

Okay, this is the part that is causing much confusion among people who do not understand what all this means. So, is she saying Bigfoot is human like us? Or, Bigfoot is human but still in the non-human category like the Apes? Or is all her wording too vague to make that determination at this time?

Human isn't precisely defined. It isn't really a technical scientific term. The most common usage is the genus Homo. That seems consistent with what she probably means

Finally what do you make of this comment by David Paulides?

Bigfoot DNA has been tested in the past, five different times with each lab showing the sample as "Human." The labs claimed contamination on each event yet were unable to get to the nuclear DNA to validate their claim, Dr. Ketchum did.

The lab probably checked the mitochondrial DNA and found modern human so basically quit. "Unable to get"? That is probably a poor choice of words. They probably didn't bother trying. They wouldn't logically need to validate that normally if the mtDNA said it was modern human. Apparently BF may be an exception.

Is it possible the Nuclear DNA was unable to be sequenced due to degraded samples? Could Ketchum have done too much manipulation and have false readings because of those manipulations? OR is it pretty clear when your sample is not degraded and you can continue to keep trying to sequence?

Thank you in advance

It is always possible that it is degraded. If you sequence it though you aren't going to get the same sequence thousands of base pairs long in degraded DNA in subsequent runs assuming you re-extract the DNA from the sample. In other words it wouldn't be consistently reading the same sequences.

The genomes should be very good as evidence because the machine picks the primers. It should validate what she did and with three of them they should validate each other if they are really three samples from sasquatch. I couldn't say she couldn't manipulate them somehow where it might get wrong but consistent results. That seems highly unlikely especially if the samples were also checked at multiple labs. Mistakes happen in those sorts of analysis but the odds of getting even a hundred base pairs the same randomly is infinitesimally small. It should make verification pretty reliable against random errors like some kind of degraded sample. There is no way that every DNA strand is going to degrade the same. They probably have specific tests for that but I don't even know what analysis she did besides apparently some mtDNA and entire genomes. That isn't likely going to be a problem with the genomes since they can compare them to each other. It might be where some of the "mosaic" or other unknown genes came from.

What if they have evidence hybridization is ongoing? Robert Alley seemed to say as much in a radio interview I heard. He claims to be connected to the Ketchum project in some way (Paulides even thanked him in his post-Igor press-release). I think Alley helped vet samples and could even be a co-author. I've heard the same from a few others claiming insider knowledge. It's a disturbing and maybe out-there idea but if true, how else would one go about characterizing the species?

...

Personally I think that is unlikely for various reasons. It is inconsistent with the statement that it is a hybrid species where the hybridization happened no more than about 15,000 years ago. It would make the relevance of the 15,000 year old hybridization even less relevant than I think it probably is. Adding a single modern human female to the population should logically be diluted after a few generations. At least that long ago the mtDNA could have spread widely either by founder effect or by natural selection. It sounds like something Paulides would say.

[Guest slimwitless]

Bob, does the press release suggest that all 20 mtDNA sequences point to the same maternal "Eve"? I remember Stubstad talked about a third mtDNA sequence that he felt was unusual but didn't match the first two (the two that supposedly inspired further inquiry).

[Rockape]

As was the " cut the steak off the leg " part also yeah, as that's the part within context of what Tontar's was asking about and insinuating there were different versions of the story intially ?

While Bobo didn't say that during that interview, there is mention in other places that the steak was cut from the thigh.

So in order to make something of the Kills, they sawed off a slice of the thigh of the adult male as a sample and stashed away the rest.

Those are Robert Lindsay's words from his blog about the possibility of bodies.

**Deleted Link**

Bobo's name is in that story so perhaps there was confusion by Tontar if he has seen that blog, or perhaps Tontar heard Bobo say that elsewhere.

And I don't believe Smeja has ever said what part of the body the "steak" came from.

Edited December 3, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC
To delete a link that isn't allowed

[BobZenor]

Bob, does the press release suggest that all 20 mtDNA sequences point to the same maternal "Eve"? I remember Stubstad talked about a third mtDNA sequence that he felt was unusual but didn't match the first two (the two that supposedly inspired further inquiry).

It would be a bit odd to say that a hybridization event happened 15,000 years ago if they weren't all the same. It is kind of ambiguous. I would expect at least occasional gene flow from us to them but probably not very often. Apparently it has happened in the past if the results mean anything. The mitochondria of other groups wouldn't really contribute anything useful to the study and there would probably be no way to distinguish that from a modern human unless it is morphology based.

I thought there was like a hundred mtDNA samples so I guess the 20 came entire mitochondria genomes. I may be confused about the hundred mtDNA samples. It would seem highly unlikely that a hundred samples or even 20 would all be the same haplogroup unless that is the criteria for including them. That would imply a more compressed genome than modern humans or probably inbreeding to put it another way. It would be compelling evidence if they all came up as that same recent haplogroup. I don't know about her well enough to know what she means by it. It wasn't specific enough to know for sure.

Edited December 2, 2012 by BobZenor

[Guest]

The "steak" is circumstantial evidence. If it ends up testing out as coyote or bear, it's still possible Justin Smeja is telling the truth. Obviously Ketchum thinks it's sasquatch and if she's right, then yes, it's the better sample of DNA (not to mention hair morphology, etc). However, if the flesh Justin found two weeks later is something else, the blood on the boots is the only physical evidence that can prove his story. Even as it stands, it's the only evidence that we know about that can tie him to the shooting.

On the one hand, I see your point, but the bloody boots are just as problematic, given the high likelihood of contamination.

[Guest slimwitless]

On the one hand, I see your point, but the bloody boots are just as problematic, given the high likelihood of contamination.

I'm sure that's true. It just seems the longer they wait the harder it going to be to get a good sample. Based on Justin's comments, he seems pretty confident the flesh he found is the real deal (Bart less so - unless things have changed). I imagine the boots weren't exactly a high priority.

[Guest]

Dr. Ketchum seems confidant, professional and to the point in the interviews she gave.

Personally I believe the peer review is complete and has been accepted. Dr Bursev was allowed to make his statement because the findings are a shock to the world, and the Bigfoot community. But mostly to get people talking and thinking before the journal publishes.

I was thinking of this exact same thing. Like this Russian doctor is that oblivious to the fact that he was kicking a hornets nest, so to speak, with his recent comments about the study. My guess is also that the news will be broken officially in the next week or two, and that the peer approval is imminent.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Samsquanch85