The Ketchum Report

[david75090]

You bring up an excellent point and I'm happy to answer it:

Don't worry about what we do based on our results which are preliminary findings (screening, not a "study") as we have a responsibility and committment of transparency and the submitter has a right to test his sample wherever he chooses.

Us not doing so as promised and should be expected, is irresponsible in my opinion and if you're asking us to delay or abolish that committment then you better give good, tangible justification for that because you bet your butt we're going to be held to it and we should expect nothing less.

Dr. Ketchum was never cornered or bullied into sharing information with us as her propriatery methods and work on any other sample (outside of Sierras) in her possession is absolutely none of our business. She was given an opportunity (requested) because there was a "perception" concern of us sharing the results we received prior to hers. Had there not been a concern with what we were doing, we wouldn't be concerned with her justifying the deviations or providing third-party validation on Sierra's tissue only.

In my opinion, if her "in-depth" testing trumps the labs we contracted, " interim perception" doesn't matter as the science must stand on its own anyways. I hope she's got them trumped, believe me.

Let me state for the record as well if it hasn't been brought up prior, had our findings confirmed anything leaning towards an "unrecognized" species, we would not have run out and undercut Dr. Ketchum's study in any manner by publicly sharing it, we would've consolidated our information and supplied that corroboration when she released her study (in same transparent manner) and hopefully provide ammunition for her if she was contended. That was the original hope (putting my personal feelings towards Dr. Ketchum completely aside as they are not as important as the objective or ramifications of new species verification)

It looks like you're saying that, if your test confirmed what Dr Ketchum's study, eventually says, you'll sit on your information. And if your information is contradictory, you were going to release your test results. At the same time, to me, it looks like you held the thread of release of your results over her head. Since Dr. Ketchum didn't cooperate, your results were released.

People on this forum are anxious to see Dr. Ketchum's study. Supposedly, it'll be released to everyone at some time. I'm thinking had she shared what you wanted shared, then someone not covered by the NDAs would be privy to information not known to the general public and would have been free to do anything they wanted with that, now shared, information. After all, they aren't covered by the NDA. Sort of like an end-around, moving-to-the-head-of-the-class type thing.

[Guest]

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.

Thanks, it's overview, I am staying away from details! And am impressed with the efforts of those involved and watching! Go to the "Report Thread" and GenesRUs has posted his take and it reeks with understanding. He/she understands so well they can write simply.. But, I do have basic questions (and big ones)....and can see eventually I must understand more...or remain with blinders...

Edited December 29, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest]

Apehuman,

I did read the comment by GenesRUs - and you're right - the explanation was excellent and its truly a must read. Every year I am involved in this pursuit I learn more and more, but I fell asleep in my high school science class for a reason... LOL. Maybe I should have stayed awake - but this stuff is so mind numbing (no offense to any DNA scientists out there). I guess this is one of those things in life - either you get it and you find it fascinating or you don't and you hope someone can explain it to you. LOL.

But, I will read those links from Bipedalist - and pray I don't lapse into a coma.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Having "been away" for a couple of days I had some reading to do to catch up on this thread and the news of the "bear/human" DNA test. While reading through the last several pages I saw there was quite a bit of discussion and speculation about "custom primers" that Dr. Ketchum must have developed. As noted by Melissa, one of our members seems to have a better handle on this issue: GenesRUs. In particular this post is well worth reading again:

Funny how ideas strike out of the blue. Ed Smith's mention of "precursors" got me to thinking about how Melba mentioned she needed to design specific primers to sequence squatch DNA. That doesn't make sense.

All current generation genome sequencers use "adapter ligation" technology. That means a "generic" adapter is attached to each DNA fragment and the sequencing is "primed" from the adapter. There is no need for primers specific to each species. We can sequence DNA from any critter, plant or microbe. The technology has been around for 5-6 years. I can't think of anyone who uses the old primer method - its time consuming and expensive by comparison. Just about every major genome lab uses the new method. Just more food for thought.

Genes

As I noted earlier in this thread after Genes's insight, the discussion of custom primers I think came from Stubstad, who was involved in the early stages of the research. Dr. Ketchum may not have had access to this new automated technology at that time, and therefore might have been stumped with the need to develop custom primers or to pay for outside labs that had the technology to do the tests. Remember, this research started about five years ago and and the new automated technology "has been around 5-6 years" and not all DNA labs would adopt the technology right away.

Maybe she can take a polygraph as Justin did (that was one of my questions and he passed it) to resolve it.

My strongest preference is to keep focused on science rather than anything that smacks of voodoo, quackery, or pseudoscience. I have more than a passing knowledge of polygraphs and can assure you polygraphs have never been confirmed to be able to detect deception based on any peer reviewed research. I've made numerous posts about this matter and refer folks to read what the American Psychological Association has to say about polygraphs. Polygraphs were debunked as junk science back when I was getting my degree in Psychology in the '70's and they are still debunked as junk science today.

But they sure are sexy and make for good TV for the uninformed....

[bipedalist]

....As I noted earlier in this thread after Genes's insight, the discussion of custom primers I think came from Stubstad, who was involved in the early stages of the research. Dr. Ketchum may not have had access to this new automated technology at that time, and therefore might have been stumped with the need to develop custom primers or to pay for outside labs that had the technology to do the tests. Remember, this research started about five years ago and and the new automated technology "has been around 5-6 years" and not all DNA labs would adopt the technology right away.

On one of the recent interviews/shows, Dr. Ketchum alludes to the fact that she has used computerized sequencers for a considerable length of time (like half the amount of time she has been a practitioner..... I interpreted that to mean 8-10 years approx. Don't ask me for the specifics, not gonna go look them up. She is certainly not "in the dark" as to the appropriate tech to be used and when to use it .... is my understanding. Perhaps she just meant computerized sequencing and not the analyzer machine itself.

Edited December 29, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

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.

I'm sorry, but that's not accurate. There were a total of 109 samples tested. Not all 109 samples were positive for human mtDNA.

This is what Dr Ketchum has directly said:

Dr. Ketchum said: “Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples.

http://digitaljourna.../article/337846

Links to the original press release are currently down due to her website being hacked.

Not trying to be harsh, but there is a LOT of inaccurate reporting on who claimed what and when. Some of it stems from confusion, and some of it is deliberately spread misinformation (IMO).

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.

Which I still don't get. What is "stronger" than DNA? It is absolutely dispositive. Why do you need pictures, or video, or whatever when you have the sequenced DNA OF the critter?

Edited December 29, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest Cervelo]

Stronger than DNA......a body

[Guest]

Maybe even "Amazing" HD video

[Guest BartloJays]

It looks like you're saying that, if your test confirmed what Dr Ketchum's study, eventually says, you'll sit on your information. And if your information is contradictory, you were going to release your test results. At the same time, to me, it looks like you held the thread of release of your results over her head. Since Dr. Ketchum didn't cooperate, your results were released.

People on this forum are anxious to see Dr. Ketchum's study. Supposedly, it'll be released to everyone at some time. I'm thinking had she shared what you wanted shared, then someone not covered by the NDAs would be privy to information not known to the general public and would have been free to do anything they wanted with that, now shared, information. After all, they aren't covered by the NDA. Sort of like an end-around, moving-to-the-head-of-the-class type thing.

I'm sorry it looks that way to you as I would contend you're in the strong minority as you're making it much more complicated then it is.

In addition, you don't know the catalyst which created the sense of urgency in us getting this tissue tested as soon as we could (suggestions from Dr. Ketchum). That's neither here nor there however as I would argue the submitter can do whatever he wants regardless (he wasn't under a signed NDA) and doesn't need to justify testing he wants to pursue to anybody and results he wants to share. Furthermore, the submitter Justin, by not reacting to the suggestions made and keeping silent would risk being complicit.

The two alternatives were one) ignore the concerns all three of us had, turn a blind eye and not pursue precautionary testing independently, or two) pursue testing and if results were not as promised, bury them and present them after her study as a contention (LOL, I'm sure everyone here would've been supportive and understanding)

Neither alternative is acceptable or consistent with our principles and I would argue we had a responsibility (especially based on concerns) to act and be transparent. She contacted us via a third-party concerned at least initially (or why waste her time) and from our standpoint, the only justification for delaying sharing these unfortunate results was some type of third party substantiation of the Sierras tissue.

Last but not least, Tyler offered to go under a reasonable NDA (remember, we're just talking about the Sierras tissue here & she called us) in trying to work with her in case our labs were missing something. That's something we really didn't have to do and took risk on our part as my instincts kept telling me we should share all information as we promised and let the chips fall where they may as if Dr. Ketchum has the "brass ring" as Jeff calls it, public perception within the "bigfoot community" based off these results will do nothing to harm those efforts. If her work has real legs it will stand in the end and of course, thats what we all hope for.

Edited December 29, 2012 by BartloJays

[Guest]

My appology for an inappropriate comment regarding Smeja. Others seem to say similar things, but I agree that my comment was wrong and it will not happen again I assure you all. I will stick to mostly reading here, as most posters here seem much more qualified then I am.

Again, my appologies to Mr. Smeja and everyone else here.

Rich1016

[chelefoot]

I'm sorry it looks that way to you as I would contend you're in the strong minority as you're making it much more complicated then it is.

In addition, you don't know the catalyst which created the sense of urgency in us getting this tissue tested as soon as we could (suggestions from Dr. Ketchum). That's neither here nor there however as I would argue the submitter can do whatever he wants regardless (he wasn't under a signed NDA) and doesn't need to justify testing he wants to pursue to anybody and results he wants to share. Furthermore, the submitter Justin, by not reacting to the suggestions made and keeping silent would risk being complicit.

Last but not least, Tyler offered to go under a reasonable NDA (remember, we're just talking about the Sierras tissue here & she called us) in trying to work with her in case our labs were missing something. That's something we really didn't have to do and took risk on our part as my instincts kept telling me we should share all information as we promised and let the chips fall where they may as if Dr. Ketchum has the "brass ring" as Jeff calls it, public perception within the "bigfoot community" based off these results will do nothing to harm those efforts. If her work has real legs it will stand in the end and of course, thats what we all hope for.

****Am I reading this wrong, or are you saying that Justin was never under an NDA with Ketchum? As I thought that he said he was in one of his interviews (with Ro, I think). If he is not, then why not simply tell us what she told him his sample tested as?

I want to thank you Bart and Tyler for coming here and sharing you results, answering questions, dealing with less than supportive responders and keeping us who having been waiting in the wings for so long...informed. It is much appreciated, although disappointing. Your efforts are appreciated by me and others I'm sure. At this point I am not sure what to think about the Ketchum study, althought I sincerely hope that is something that we are not privy to yet that will eventually set our minds at ease and once and for all prove the existance of the Sasquatch. It's a shame that she would not work with you guys to clear up any confusion.

But I will save my final opinion until everything is on the table..whenever that may be and hope I am alive at the point to see it. I just wish that ALL parties involved would "Show their cards". Thanks for showing yours.

[Sasfooty]

I'm sorry, but that's not accurate. There were a total of 109 samples tested. Not all 109 samples were positive for human mtDNA.

I recalled reading somewhere a few months ago that around 200 samples were submitted to the study. Of the 200, there were 109 that tested presumptive for Sasquatch.

After Googling "ketchum sasquatch 200 samples", I found several references to the 200 samples that were originally tested..

Edited December 29, 2012 by Sasfooty

[Guest Scout1959]

My appology for an inappropriate comment regarding Smeja. Others seem to say similar things, but I agree that my comment was wrong and it will not happen again I assure you all. I will stick to mostly reading here, as most posters here seem much more qualified then I am.

Again, my appologies to Mr. Smeja and everyone else here.

Rich1016

I don't know what you commented but I don't see why we wouldn't be allowed to state that we don't believe the story. Just state it in as civil a tone as possible.

I don't for one believe that a bf was ever involved in the actual event (or if an event of any kind ever happened), but that's just me and what I walk away with after reading the story and watching the various videos.

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

Question: In Ketchum's last radio show interview on Coast to Coast, she stated that a man gave her hair samples for DNA testing which she later found out that the samples belonged to yet another man who seeemed likeable - was alleged to be a known hoaxer - was disabled - who pleaded to be a part of her study - and who this individual and another man tried to get her to contract with them that led to a dispute over a contract that she never agreed to. Ketchum had also remarked that the original guy who misreresented the samples as his own was now deceased.

Does anyone know who these players (deceased or living) might be that Ketchum had referenced???

Edited December 29, 2012 by Bigfoothunter

[Guest Tyler H]

Bart, All

I just want everyone to know - when any two people work together on anything, there will occasionally be differences in the way they want to approach things. Bart and I have worked extremely well together, and never fought about anything, and he was great to brain-storm with - but we did have different plans of attack.

When I started working with these samples, it was mostly a solo project (one in which I was backed by my Canadian research partner Gary Cronin). My plan was to have real time updates on a facebook page, each time I got news from the Trent University lab. Then you all would have been able to take the roller-coaster ride along with us.

But, as I proceeded, Bart and I kept having more contact, and Bart became really invaluable. He is much more plugged in to the Squatch community than I am, as the community is much more US based than Canada based. Bart also had proximity to Justin, and a close friendship with Justin - I felt that was invaluable as well, since so much of the credibility of this story rested on Justin's character. Not to mention the fact that I have always seen Bart as one of a rare breed of objective, diligent, evidence driven Squatchers. When my lab encountered some difficulties at the outset, Bart rightfully undertook to have a second lab in the US work on the sample so that my Canadian lab could either be supported, or challenged. Regardless of what transpired with my lab, this would have been a desired check and balance.

Bart says that had his results confirmed unknown primate, he would have sat on them, and allowed Melba to proceed with releasing her results. I must say here that that was never my plan - my results were coming out regardless of what they were. Again, my plan was to have them revealed in basically real time on facebook as this proceeded. (I am glad I didn't do that in hindsight now though, as I think it could have spooked the lab, and compromised their willingness to proceed.)

I think those two things, and this last thing are probably the only three things where we had different approaches in mind:

I was willing to offer an NDA with Melba, mostly because I was starting to mistrust that she had any intention of following through on her request that I allow her to persuade me to re-think the release of my results by providing evidence. Each option I gave her seemed to get met with excuses, so my plan was to offer the world - an extremely low threshold for what I would accept as "supporting evidence" and the promise of some sort of NDA. If she would still not comply, then it seemed reasonable that I should move on without her input, and feel confident that she was not sincere, and that I had given her every chance. But I do want to make it clear that I would NOT have signed up on any NDA that would have tied my hands in anyway about my info. If she wanted an NDA to ensure that I did not divulge any of HER proprietary info, I had no issue with that. I have never wanted to steal her thunder, or spoil any valid work she has done.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Tyler H