The Ketchum Report

[Guest Cervelo]

No no NG just like V said you just keep making up more theories and toss them about until one sticks, tried and true method!

[Guest VioletX]

Plussed Violet, quick study!

Thanks but it is so confusing, and with the "bear meat" that was stolen from Smeja, as PP mentioned, it is now even more conspiracy material. We cannot re-test the "bear meat" because it was stolen...

But so far no comments from the parties involved right? Haven't had time to read everything...

[Guest]

So does anyone think Justin purposely provided a bear sample to try to cover the liability of shooting two hominids based on the believe prior to the latest tabloid garbage? The whole story from the beginning was suspect of BS but as time went on it grew stronger legs. With last months press release the pressure could really be on Smega to dilute the waters to provide reasonable doubt if he worries of ever finds himself in court later

I don't know, this is just grasping at straws now...

[Guest VioletX]

So does anyone think Justin purposely provided a bear sample to try to cover the liability of shooting two hominids based on the believe prior to the latest tabloid garbage? The whole story from the beginning was suspect of BS but as time went on it grew stronger legs. With last months press release the pressure could really be on Smega to dilute the waters to provide reasonable doubt if he worries of ever finds himself in court later

Yes, that was my wild assertion earlier...but any way you look at it makes no sense.

[Drew]

Here is the actual study https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwrMS-lXBDSqc2YwR0oxZVN5R28/edit

It is concluded that the species of origin that is the major contributor of nuclear and

mitochondrial DNA in sample Huggins_1 is a female black bear, Ursus americanus. The sample

gave a microsatellite profile. The sample also yielded human mitochondrial DNA with a control

region sequence. Huggins_1 gave no detectable nuclear DNA. Huggins_2, a single hair, gave

primarily black bear mitochondrial DNA. There was only a trace of human mitochondrial DNA

compared to Huggins_1. Human mitochondrial DNA obtained from samples Huggins_1, 570, 576,

and 578 cannot be excluded as originating from the same source; however, DNA from sample Lab

Tech can be excluded as being present in Huggins_1 .

[Guest]

Notice how recently the members involved in the Sierra story have weighed in recently .....crickets......,,ya not much. What's that tell us? It came back beat and they are still in hiding. They told us a good story and we bought it hook line and sinker.

[Guest VioletX]

I just remembered that MK made a FB comment at some point that the picture of the sample "steak" floating around was not the same as what she had...

I am sure it is back on pg 256 here....lol.

[bipedalist]

So does anyone think Justin purposely provided a bear sample to try to cover the liability of shooting two hominids based on the believe prior to the latest tabloid garbage? The whole story from the beginning was suspect of BS but as time went on it grew stronger legs. With last months press release the pressure could really be on Smega to dilute the waters to provide reasonable doubt if he worries of ever finds himself in court later

Easier to believe a gov agent broke into his house stole some bear meet switched it with the lab in Canada and everybody lived happily ever after really....or you could just read the comments on bigfoot evidence and play pretend ; )

[Guest]

Very simplistically, I'll show you how an example is part of a study and still not claimed as a significant finding:

-----

Let us take a study of 10 genetic samples for [x].

Of those 10 samples, the results are as follows:

Sample 1: no x

Sample 2: no x

Sample 3: no x

Sample 4: x presnet

Sample 5: x present

Sample 6: no x

Sample 7: no x

Sample 8: no x

Sample 9: x present

Sample10: no x

Summary: X was not present in 7 samples (1,2,3,6,7,8 and 10), and present in 3 samples (4,5 and 9)

-----

All 10 samples are "part of the study" in that they were analyzed. Not all 10 samples tested positive for x.

That sounds reasonable - but how do you account for the fact that the results for the "human" component came back as Justin himself? Would she still keep that in the study regardless? Surely Melba caught this and threw the sample out immediately.

Notice how recently the members involved in the Sierra story have weighed in recently .....crickets......,,ya not much. What's that tell us? It came back beat and they are still in hiding. They told us a good story and we bought it hook line and sinker.

Bart is not in hiding. Maybe he is working. Bart has always come here to defend himself and his work. Give him some time - I bet he is inundated with emails and other such things.

[Guest reelback]

the pressure could really be on Smega to dilute the waters to provide reasonable doubt if he worries of ever finds himself in court later

Without law in place to protect the species, how can you be in court about it? This is really far fetched.

Are you suggesting this is more likely than it was just a hoax?

Thanks but it is so confusing, and with the "bear meat" that was stolen from Smeja, as PP mentioned, it is now even more conspiracy material. We cannot re-test the "bear meat" because it was stolen...

But so far no comments from the parties involved right? Haven't had time to read everything...

I dont think its confusing at all. None of it makes sense because its 99% certainly a lie.

[Guest]

Last time I checked this site, it was ok to post whatever we want so long as we don't attack a member or speak of politics or religion or whatever. You know the rules.

I do indeed. I know you haven't proffered any evidence to support your claim and I am entirely within my rights to point that out.

If you have any evidence that Ketchum explicitly claimed the Smeja sample as testing positive for her unknown primate/hominid, please post it.

Please link to your reported "reviewer". Did they give a name, or was it an Anonymous claim? What bona fides did they provide to establish that they had seen the study?

That sounds reasonable - but how do you account for the fact that the results for the "human" component came back as Justin himself? Would she still keep that in the study regardless? Surely Melba caught this and threw the sample out immediately.

It doesn't matter. Once a sample is admitted into a study, it is retained regardless of whether the finding is positive, negative, or otherwise.

The presence of Smeja's sample as one of the study samples is problematic ONLY if Ketchum makes the claim that that particular sample is diagnostic for her unknown hominid/primate. Otherwise it's just another negative result.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest thermalman]

It is curious a lab seems unable to remove contamination (or the concern) from such a large sample. It was my understanding that techniques today, given the sample as both hair and tissue, eliminate contamination reliably?

http://bigfooteviden...ino-shares.html

Don't believe everything you read online.

[Guest]

The presence of Smeja's sample as one of the study samples is problematic ONLY if Ketchum makes the claim that that particular sample is diagnostic for her unknown hominid/primate. Otherwise it's just another negative result.

Yeah - I totally agree with that. Well I guess we will just have to wait. This does give Melba the chance to make any necessary changes - if needed.

Well - as always I am going to just going to wait until Bart talks here - or he says something on a site I take the time to read. I keep hearing that Melba called this the "centerpiece" of her study - but I am starting to think this is a rumor..... So, who knows what will happen next. I will sit back and await the final results.

I wonder what will happen to the documentary on this whole situation that is or was being made??...

[Guest Tyler H]

Hi Folks

Regarding whether Melba claims that Justin's sample are Squatch or not, it's printed clearly in the footnotes of my statement. (Footnote 5 in particular).

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2_Ab-LKXZlNNFRTQjRmUXItWGc/edit

I won't be on here all day answering questions, but may poke my head in from time to time - in my opinion this topic/thread is already WAY to long to keep up on. Maybe we need a new one for just this report.

I will be answering more questions at the bfro public forum.

Tyler Huggins

Edited December 26, 2012 by Tyler H

[Guest]

Here ya go folks... (although I hate linking to this blog) I posted below what Tyler alluded to in his post above.

[5] Melba Ketchum claims that the tissue recovered and submitted to her by Justin Smeja is from a Sasquatch and that this animal is in fact genetically “human†in almost every sense of the word. Our labs achieved species identification for only the samples that Smeja submitted to our team. While Smeja claims (and has confirmed under a polygraph) that the samples he provided to Melba Ketchum are the same as the samples he provided to us, Ketchum disputes this and asserts that her samples are visually distinct from ours. The Ketchum team has expressed concern about our results and their subsequent release. In an effort to avoid any confusion for the general public, the scientific community and/or the “Bigfoot/Sasquatch communityâ€, I complied with requests to consider any sort of alleged contrary evidence from the Ketchum camp that could cast doubt on the results of our labs, prior to releasing our data. After weeks of opportunity and requests, Ketchum has provided no such evidence (outside of personal assurances), nor any corroborating statements from any other scientific source allegedly involved in her study.