The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

Bart,

Have you discussed your findings with Wally Hersom and if so what are his thoughts as to what Ketchum is testing and finding? I would imagine he has a lot to be concerned about as her supposedly funded much of her work on this study.

I am sure Adrian Erickson would also be concerned as well.

I'm glad you are doing what you are doing as we need more stand up people like you and Tyler in Sasquatchery.

Thanks,

[Guest BartloJays]

Thank you Poly- appreciate that

I don't want to bring Wally into this or discuss his current opinions/positions as let's just say, he's aware of everything and is also one of my very best and closest friends (7 yrs) in the whole world. I love him for the inspiring person and friend he is (full of life and adventure), and I can't thank, protect or attempt to shield him enough as without him and his direct contributions (my thermal sighting in Cascades in 2007 & now thermal footage 2012 in Sierras) I don't know 110% these animals are real as both of those definitive visual experiences (dream come true for me) were a direct result of persistance and access to thermal imagers (from Wally) with the subjects quietly sneaking in near camp in late night/early morning hours. Take that away and yes there's still some amazing experiences left, but I question where my level of skepticism (with respect to "existence") would be today. Because of Wally, thankfully I don't waste much time thinking about that and can focus on aggressive pursuit on the ground during nocturnal hours, which I covet .

Edited December 29, 2012 by BartloJays

[Guest]

Thanks Bart for taking the time to answer my question and I respect what you stated above. I had gathered that you and Wally are close and thus why I asked.

Has your thermal footage from the Sierras been released yet and if not when?

Thanks again!

[Guest BartloJays]

Should be out in a few weeks my friend. I'm embarrased about not having it out yet after I stated within a couple months in October (presented with prelim analysis as a favor to Rugg in Felton). I've just been buried and am a perfectionist. As is Rgr Leiterman who headed the investigation. The documentation will be worth it and I think by the end of the month absolute latest. Will include, 40+ min of footage, interview footage, all analysis and measurements (re-creations took 30+ hrs, 4-5 guys and 8 days at site), real-time audio with intense dialogue about 40 min worth, a Q&A and full report etc....no half ass as this footage is too far and blurry to be anywhere near damning on its own, but with everything together, including 6 witnesses who would bet their families, it's very, very compelling. Will mean more down the road because of group behavior like rock throwing for instance and there's multiple subjects (at least 3) 300 yds from "the killsite."

May want to check your inbox

[TimB]

Since this seems to be a reaction to the results Dr. Ketchum will be releasing in the future, how will you resolve the issue of whether both results are actually from the same sample?

Tim B.

[Guest BartloJays]

Since this seems to be a reaction to the results Dr. Ketchum will be releasing in the future, how will you resolve the issue of whether both results are actually from the same sample?

Tim B.

Good old chain of custody question which is a very valid question. Well, it's his word against hers at this point (though why he'd be incentivized to do this is beyond him and me frankly) as I didn't hear anything from her camp or anybody else contending that he sent her a piece right from the body prior to her being aware of our results. That doesn't mean she didn't feel that way however in fairness to her, just that I hadn't heard that contention prior.

Maybe she can take a polygraph as Justin did (that was one of my questions and he passed it) to resolve it. Better yet, if her Sierras tissue/genome is validated, then maybe we should test my emergency piece he gave me (I didn't request) way back when he brought me the boots with a third party and her observation.

I think best case scenario is somehow, someway Dr. Ketchum's work circumvents the work of our labs through appropriate validation and some of the hiccups both of our labs had and were documented are clues to substantiation for her.

Any ideas on your part?

[TimB]

No I'm sorry- that's just the first question that pops in my mind. I think I was thinking it because she's on record as saying the sample pictures that Justin released through LIndsay were not a visual match to the sample she received from him.

Tim B.

[Guest]

First time poster, fascinating issue to me. I was listening to an interview conducted with Dr. Ketchum on December 10. The interviewer asked whether all of the samples which were tested resulted in consistent findings and Ketchum responded in the affirmative and said that, "We have 109 samples in the study. And they all gave us the human mito component." You can listen to the interview here:

*removed media link*

. The relevant exchange occurs at about the 4:00 minute mark.

It seems like everyone agrees that the Smeja Sierra Kills sample was submitted to Ketchum and the point of contention seems to be whether that sample resulted in the human hybrid determination. In that interview, Ketchum reveals that "all" of the samples (including the Smeja sample by definition) came back with the human hybrid finding. At least that is the way I interpret it. Perhaps I am incorrect.

You're hearing it wrong. Before that point she is talking about "4 or 5 other labs" that have tested suspected sas samples as well and that "they all came up with the same thing" (meaning they were getting the same results as each other, not that all 109 Ketchum samples were testing the same.

I read in one of Mulder's posts the following:

Quote:

EVERY sample tested is "in the study". Doesn't mean that every sample is claimed to be diagnostic for the "unknown". Gonna keep pointing that out until it sinks in around here.

Why? Of the over 100 samples, only ~20 tested + for the human mtDNA. Of those, only 3 had good enough nuDNA to fully sequence.

In the interview I posted earlier, Dr. Ketchum said something directly contradictory to this statement. I have always had the impression that the 109 samples were the entirety of what Ketchum tested and she indicated that they "all" tested postive for the human mtDNA. I suppose Mulder may have assumed incorrect information himself and that led to a faulty conclusion on my part.

No, she didn't. See above.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Unless a lab uses the same sample that Dr. Ketchum used, even the most accurate results might be unreliable because what guarantee is there that Justin didn't give Bart samples from a different animal? It can't be both bear and bigfoot.

[Guest Tyler H]

Primers are not oracles. They are short nucleotides that initiate the process of DNA copying. If you want to target a specific region of a chromosome, you need a primer suited to the task. We speculate here that Ketchum developed her own primers, but there's nothing extraordinary about custom primers.

I can put the primer question to rest. I initially expected (partly from conversations with Richard Stubstad) that Melba had novel primers developed (as had been the case for Denisovan and Neanderthal). In phone conversations with Melba, she laid those thoughts to rest, asserting that it had "nothing to do with the primers" - she does contend that the tissue Bart and I worked with looks different than the tissue she worked with, and she DID follow substantially different testing methodologies. In the end, the science will tell the story when her report comes out.

I'm wondering why a person with NDAs, like Dr. Ketchum, is expected to share information from her study that is covered by these NDAs. She was given the chance to share her findings, ahead of the release of her paper, but refused to do so. Isn't she supposed to refuse to share her findings with just anyone? It seems like she's being blamed for not being transparent, when she's not allowed to be transparent. If she shares her information with these people who've had their samples tested independently, doesn't that blow her whole study before it's published?

The NDA's that I saw, which Ketchum used, put her in full control - she had and has the ability to divulge whatever she wants, based on those NDA's. If there are other NDA's that I have not seen, then I can not comment on those ones, but it seems to me she made darn sure she kept complete control in tihs situation. I can't see her being legally beholden to anyone.

*KEY POINT*

I NEVER approached the Ketchum camp asking to see any part of their info. One of the persons with a vested interest asked if I would allow myself to be persuaded by any evidence that Melba might be able to provide - If I might delay, or re-think my release if she gave me compelling evidence/reason to do so. I replied yes - I want the science to be transparent and fair, and if my resuts were wrong, I wanted to look into that potential. Melba made personal assurances, but none of her original overtures about providing independent corroboration of her results ever materialized. In the end, I lowered my standard of evidence to asking if I could merely talk to one scientist who would give me a verbal assurance that "I have worked with Justin's samples, and I support Melba's conclusions" regarding the sample being from an uncatalogued primate. This would have divulged NOTHING that she hadn't already said publically. In fact, it was far less information than what she had divulged publically. But my request got ignored.

Again - I'm open to the possibility that one day her report will show up the deficiencies in my report and bart's report. I'll be ecstatic if she has what she claims. Until then, I can only put faith in the science I have seen performed by reputable PhD's.

I will go on the record as saying that Melba told me she had no fewer than 12 labs replicate her work, and that there were 109 samples - She never made claims to me about how many of those were presumptive for Squatch.

She has said publically, and confirmed with me privately that claim to have 3 complete genomes.

[Guest]

This is all so fascinating, convoluted, and complicated. Thanks Tyler and Bart for shedding some light on the subject. It seems that the drama continues to build...I hope we'll have more conclusions soon so we can put it to rest...either way!

[Guest COGrizzly]

Bart - thank you for continually sharing info. I highly appreciate it! No questions, just sayin thanks.

[Guest]

You're hearing it wrong. Before that point she is talking about "4 or 5 other labs" that have tested suspected sas samples as well and that "they all came up with the same thing" (meaning they were getting the same results as each other, not that all 109 Ketchum samples were testing the same.

No, she didn't. See above.

Thank you for the response. In listening to the interview, a reasonable person would conclude that Ketchum's earlier statement was focused on testing performed on other samples by labs that were not part of her study. And then the interviewer asked an entirely new question about her study and her answer unambiguously referred to the "109 samples that we have in the study" and that "they all gave us the human mito component." Anyway, it seems to be a fairly minor controversy which will be put to rest if and when the Ketchum paper is published.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Ketchum said the paper covers more disciplines than DNA. Maybe they're boning up on how to respond to various lines of attack.

I've taken to reading science journal articles/reports detailing new species identification, boning up for the hoped for publication of Dr. Ketchum's report. One thing I've noticed it that every report has multiple authors from a variety of disciplines to cover different aspects of the study. I remember very early in this thread there was mention that in an early iteration of the paper the peer reviewers encouraged adding at least one other discipline to the lineup of the authors to lend more strength.

Desperation is much too strong a word, I'll go with exasperation worthy of a sarsaparilla

With a White Lightning chaser....

[Guest]

Well, in theory publication through peer-review is supposed to take such novel claims (or methods) and put them to a test of sorts via the reviewers and if it passes, then on to the scientific community (or public).. What manner they test such a paper is not cut and dried, although most appear to be paper reviews. A nested novel method in a larger paper could be handled within that review it would seem to me.

Yes, they can so publish, assuming whatever it is they are reviewing rises to the standard of that Journal, or ability of those reviewers...hence the long arguments, here and everywhere, on anything of import published by Journals, but as yet not widely accepted/replicated. If the work is valid it will survive that lengthy process, if not it becomes something on the heap...that might still hold value for some...there is no cut and dried way it seems...but in the end, if you have a paper and 400 or so of your peers cite to it in their own research, you won.

Thank you for your reply, Apehuman. I am actually kind of surprised at the process. It sounds to me like the primer alone could keep this fight going for a very long time. One would think there would be a cut and dried process for something like a primer one would have to go through prior to its usage. If the validity of this primer rests on the citations of 400 peers, in their own research, we could be waiting a long time. If I have something wrong in this comment - please feel free to correct me.

Your explanations have been very helpful, so again, thank you.