The Ketchum Report

[Guest slimwitless]

I challenge anyone to make sense of this passage. It is gibberish. What is she even saying? The dubious Solutrean hypothesis (that Cro-Magnon Solutreans crossed the Atlantic ca. 20-15kya) is based on similar spear points found in Europe and N. America. Is she saying that the Solutreans who are responsible for not only those advanced spear points, but also the amazing cave paintings at Lascaux and elsewhere are actually BF and that they crossed the frozen Atlantic in boats? Or that the Solutreans were made up of a multitude of different mtDNA lineages and crossed the Atlantic to mate with BF over here, but the only females that survived are those that are descended from human-BF mating---no pure BF females survived?

Or is it more likely that she has DNA samples from 20 modern North American humans? You tell me.

Probably the latter (this is BF...take the safe bet). However, she does say migration "may have occurred" in such and such a way. Previously she said her ideas about the origins were a theory, even stating "we don't know for sure". As for the multiple haplotypes, I've brought this up quite a few times on this forum. The behind-the-scenes rumors indicated that was the result. The other behind-the-scene rumor which may not be addressed in the paper (perhaps because it's shocking), is that they/she believed hybridization was ongoing. Ketchum herself referred to NA kidnap stories within the last century in an interview. Would this explain multiple Eves? I've asked here before. Implausible? Probably. Possible? You tell me. Remember, we're talking BF.

Edited February 14, 2013 by slimwitless

[Guest Llawgoch]

Time to point out the ''clovis first'' theory is quite dead in the water, so the Solutrean may actually be quite correct.

I don't think that makes any difference. She's just throwing that out to try and establish how European DNA dating back 13,000 years could come from Bigfoot, rather than drawing the obvious conclusion that it comes from recent European immigrants.

[Guest]

This was my point also with a 2 step approach. Why did she to say what they are and where they came from? Step 1- here is DNA. It is new and undiscovered. We ship it to other labs and they agree. Oh and this DNA was collected at this spot where a 8' 600lb hairy monster was seen. Publish findings. Done.

[Guest Llawgoch]

What about the people that have seen them ?

What should the be eating ?

You think this makes a difference, whatever the outcome of this study, to what i saw all those years ago ?

Bwah

More fool you.

Why are you conflating "faith in the Ketchum Project" with "belief in Bigfoot"? The two are entirely separate You could have Bigfoot living in your basement and still have decided a while ago you didn't have a lot of faith in Ketchum.

[southernyahoo]

She found 16 different "mothers" or more properly mitochondrial "Eves" out of the 20 samples she did a full mtDNA sequence on. And these weren't rare ancient "Cro-Magnon" haplotypes. They are common mostly European types. They are the types that most of us on these boards would fall into.

Those of you that have followed the discussion and speculation on this topic here for the last few months should realize the implications of this. If she had one or maybe two haplotypes (preferable a Native American type or at least one associated with east Asia) she could have made an argument that there was a hybridization event prior to prior to BF migrating to N. America and that all the BF females had the human mtDNA. I have tried on numerous occasions in this very thread to come up with possible (if implausible) scenarios to account for her hybridization theory.

But 100% of the mtDNA came back fully modern human with 16 different human female lineages? From a wide variety of different haplotypes? Mostly from Europe? How do she explain this? Again, here is the relevant passage quoted directly from her paper (and fully within the bounds of fair use):

I challenge anyone to make sense of this passage. It is gibberish. What is she even saying? The dubious Solutrean hypothesis (that Cro-Magnon Solutreans crossed the Atlantic ca. 20-15kya) is based on similar spear points found in Europe and N. America. Is she saying that the Solutreans who are responsible for not only those advanced spear points, but also the amazing cave paintings at Lascaux and elsewhere are actually BF and that they crossed the frozen Atlantic in boats? Or that the Solutreans were made up of a multitude of different mtDNA lineages and crossed the Atlantic to mate with BF over here, but the only females that survived are those that are descended from human-BF mating---no pure BF females survived?

Or is it more likely that she has DNA samples from 20 modern North American humans? You tell me.

Some of you keep holding out for some qualified experts to coming riding in to save day, but yet many of you haven't bothered to buy the report yourselves. Let me be as plain as I can be. I am a professional archaeologist and anthropologist with a federal agency that would be directly responsible for dealing with this creature should it prove to be real. I lean to the skeptical side for sure, but am very much open to the possibility that BF is real and I'm fully supportive of legitimate efforts to get to the bottom of this mystery.

I am the target audience for this paper. I am exactly the type of person this study was supposed to convince.

On the mtDNA portion of her paper I am a qualified expert. And unlike most of you I coughed up the money and bought the paper read it. I didn't ignore it like many of you claim us elite scientists always do. I read it and I found it to be incredibly underwhelming. The mtDNA portion and her explanation of the wide variety of haplotypes is well-within my area of expertise and it is garbage. Not just far-fetched or poorly argued---it's garbage. Superficial, wikipedied garbage.

I'm sorry to be so blunt. There is no way that this portion of the paper would have made it through any legitimate peer review process intact. Maybe there's something magical in the three nuDNA samples but her case wasn't very convincing---at best it seems inconclusive. On that portion I'll reserve full judgement until some of the genetics experts weigh in, but based on the rest of the paper it does not look promising at all. I feel really bad for those of you who put so much of their hopes into this and thought it would bring vindication, but this was clearly the wrong horse to back.

I'll be honest Theagenes, I didn't expect a lot of proof coming from the mtDNA. Prospective BF samples have always turned up human or a known animal. If bigfoot are a wild human cross and the progenitor maternal lineage is lost there won't be proof in the mtDNA ever. This does leave us to examine the nuDNA and specificly to target the X and Y chromosomes for futher understanding of the origin of the samples. I expect that the Y chromosome would have to be particularly novel to make this paper viable. distinct morphology across samples plays a supporting role also.A novel hominin is their finding, it doesn't matter how we explain it's presence on the north american continent, because it will always be a theory postulated from the evidence. BTW, there has been evidence found in an preclovis archeological site (hair) that yielded mtDNA that was not native hap A, B, C or D. This leaves X or european. That would be precedent for what is postulated for BF.

[Guest]

Well, onto the next (Sykes).

[Guest VioletX]

Did this go down differently than I expected? Absolutely.

Is the person who designed the SGP website absolutely terrible at marketing? Yes.

Do I still think her paper has the goods? Yes, although this mess has definitely lowered my being sure. There are several problems with the way she presents her data (for example the way she has worded her conclusions) - if there are problems with the data itself, no one can know yet.

There are several possible ways this is going to end, and I don't know which route it will take:

- Experts at nuDNA genome sequencing are going to review the paper and publish their analysis. This is the best thing that could happen. Either they'll vindicate her, or prove that this whole thing is a fraud or at the very least sloppy science.

- No nuDNA genome sequencing experts will care enough to analyze the paper on more than a superficial basis. I fear this is pretty likely.

- The Kentucky project is going to publish their HD video documentary. This would not per se vindicate the Ketchum project, but it would definitely get the ball rolling and make this worldwide news. I don't know why they would NOT publish it, but they haven't done so far and I hope they will soon.

This

[Guest gershake]

This was my point also with a 2 step approach. Why did she to say what they are and where they came from? Step 1- here is DNA. It is new and undiscovered. We ship it to other labs and they agree. Oh and this DNA was collected at this spot where a 8' 600lb hairy monster was seen. Publish findings. Done.

So much this.

[Guest Theagenes]

Probably the latter (this is BF...take the safe bet). However, she does say migration "may have occurred" in such and such a way. Previously she said her ideas about the origins were a theory, even stating "we don't know for sure". As for the multiple haplotypes, I've brought this up quite a few times on this forum. The behind-the-scenes rumors indicated that was the result. The other behind-the-scene rumor which may not be addressed in the paper (perhaps because it's shocking), is that they/she believed hybridization was ongoing. Ketchum herself referred to NA kidnap stories within the last century in an interview. Would this explain multiple Eves? I've asked here before. Implausible? Probably. Possible? You tell me. Remember, we're talking BF.

Yes, I think we talked about this in the Bart and Tyler thread. One thing I'd like to be clear about is that contrary to TimB.'s claims that I've been anti-Ketchum along and that I'm just confirming my pre-conceived ideas about her study, I have actually spent a great deal of time and energy on these boards defending the possibility of her hybridization idea. I have suggested various scenarios in which this hybridization event could have occurred, I've done a great deal of speculating on the possibilty of which, if any, of the known hominin types could have been paternal ancestor, even to the point of starting the "Which of these did BF look like?" thread to try and nail down the possibilities. Anyone who has followed my posts here over the last couple of months knows this.

But all of that speculation was based on the fact that the only DNA information we had was from Stubstad's reports of a couple of years ago in which he said there were 2 rare haplotypes out of 3 mtDNA samples. More recently I got a look at Stubstad's full report and realized that there were some serious problems with what he was saying---naming that the haplotypes weren't rare at all, but quite common---two sample were European and one was African. He was making the same mistake that this current paper does by seeing when the haplotypes originated and thinking that that meant these were ancient lineages when they still exist today.

But I chalked that up to Stubstad not understanding what MK was telling him and I still gave her the benefit of the doubt. Then when I was defending MK hybridization idea to Bart in his thread, by suggesting a genetic bottle neck prior to BF entering N. America so that all the BF here had human mtDNA with the same haplotype---that would account for all of their descendents, the modern N. American BFs, having human mtDNA---but again they would all have to have the same haplotype. That's when I think you, Slim, or maybe it was Bart, suggested that it was rumored that she had a number of different haplotypes. I believe I said something to the effect of "Well, if that's the case then she has a real problem to try and explain it." Well, sure enough you were right. She does have a multitude of haplotypes and she does have a real problem to explain.

If you have occasional mating events between BF and human females, then their offspring will have human mtDNA. Their female offspring will pass that mtDNA down to the next generation, but eventual after a few generations that human mtDNA will disappear as it gets swamped by the "pure" BF DNA in the breeding population. Let's say you have a kidnap/rape scenario happening every now and then. Then you might expect one or two out of MK's 20 samples to have human mtDNA. These samples would be from direct female descendents of one of these kidnap events. Let's say it's even more common than we think. How many should there be, then? 4 or 5 out of 20? How about half? How about more than half? 15, 16? But, no that's not what she's claiming. She's saying that all 20 of the samples that she got a full mtDNA genome on were fully modern human. Beyond that she'd also saying that most of the other 90 or so samples that she didn't get a full mtDNA genome on were also likely 100% human. That goes beyond the occasional kidnap/rape scenario. For this to work you would have to argue that female bigfoots aren't allowed to reproduce and that the BF males only mate with human females. It's beyond implausible. That's why I say that her having multiple haplotypes is effectively the death sentence for her hybridization theory.

The other possibility, of course, is that she has the DNA of 20 modern North American humans.

[Guest crabshack]

She found 16 different "mothers" or more properly mitochondrial "Eves" out of the 20 samples she did a full mtDNA sequence on. And these weren't rare ancient "Cro-Magnon" haplotypes. They are common mostly European types. They are the types that most of us on these boards would fall into.

I am a professional archaeologist and anthropologist with a federal agency that would be directly responsible for dealing with this creature should it prove to be real.

She found with regards to the mitochondrial dna what I expected her to find with this creature.

Her Solutrean hypothesis I do disagree with because she tries to ties this thing into the accepted norm of written history that believe is both flawed and false.

[Guest]

I'll be honest Theagenes, I didn't expect a lot of proof coming from the mtDNA. Prospective BF samples have always turned up human or a known animal. If bigfoot are a wild human cross and the progenitor maternal lineage is lost there won't be proof in the mtDNA ever. This does leave us to examine the nuDNA and specificly to target the X and Y chromosomes for futher understanding of the origin of the samples. I expect that the Y chromosome would have to be particularly novel to make this paper viable. distinct morphology across samples plays a supporting role also.A novel hominin is their finding, it doesn't matter how we explain it's presence on the north american continent, because it will always be a theory postulated from the evidence. BTW, there has been evidence found in an preclovis archeological site (hair) that yielded mtDNA that was not native hap A, B, C or D. This leaves X or european. That would be precedent for what is postulated for BF.

Thank you so much!!!!

[Guest gershake]

She's saying that all 20 of the samples that she got a full mtDNA genome on were fully modern human. Beyond that she'd also saying that most of the other 90 or so samples that she didn't get a full mtDNA genome on were also likely 100% human. That goes beyond the occasional kidnap/rape scenario. For this to work you would have to argue that female bigfoots aren't allowed to reproduce and that the BF males only mate with human females.

Swear word. This is damning.

[TimB]

Do you understand that if this was a credible piece of science, there wouldn't be a $30.00 fee for University faculty to look at it?

Do you think they are sending copies out to libraries at Universities?

No.

It lacks scientific credibility from 'go'.

Cherry picking. All journals charge an issue price if you don't have a subscription. Nice try though. Mountains and molehills.

Tim B.

Edited February 15, 2013 by AaronD
to remove abusive material

[Guest slimwitless]

If you have occasional mating events between BF and human females, then their offspring will have human mtDNA. Their female offspring will pass that mtDNA down to the next generation, but eventual after a few generations that human mtDNA will disappear as it gets swamped by the "pure" BF DNA in the breeding population. Let's say you have a kidnap/rape scenario happening every now and then. Then you might expect one or two out of MK's 20 samples to have human mtDNA. These samples would be from direct female descendents of one of these kidnap events. Let's say it's even more common than we think. How many should there be, then? 4 or 5 out of 20? How about half? How about more than half? 15, 16? But, no that's not what she's claiming. She's saying that all 20 of the samples that she got a full mtDNA genome on were fully modern human. Beyond that she'd also saying that most of the other 90 or so samples that she didn't get a full mtDNA genome on were also likely 100% human. That goes beyond the occasional kidnap/rape scenario. For this to work you would have to argue that female bigfoots aren't allowed to reproduce and that the BF males only mate with human females. It's beyond implausible. That's why I say that her having multiple haplotypes is effectively the death sentence for her hybridization theory.

The other possibility, of course, is that she has the DNA of 20 modern North American humans.

Ha...well, I'm almost kicking myself for wanting to play devil's advocate but what the heck, I'm hiding behind a ridiculous screen name.

What if you combine your bottleneck theory with the kidnap theory? All BF in NA would have human mtDNA (and would always have modern human mtDNA). I would think, with enough samples, one could identify the mito Eve of the bottleneck population from the "purer" offspring. Am I wrong in my thinking?

[MIB]

If you have occasional mating events between BF and human females, then their offspring will have human mtDNA. Their female offspring will pass that mtDNA down to the next generation, but eventual after a few generations that human mtDNA will disappear as it gets swamped by the "pure" BF DNA in the breeding population.

This would be true UNLESS there is some attribute of the hybrid the pure strain lacks which makes them significantly more biologically viable than the pure strain. Could be reproductive frequency or a difference in infant / childhood mortality. It could even be a behavioral difference, something the human mother teaches their hybrid offspring that the "pure" offspring are not taught. All assertions are speculative ... before we can assess the correctness of any, we need to know more about "the other parent" species.

- MIB